Ditto what others said about your nice airshow shots CKrueger ... here's a couple of mine from Rocky Mountain Airport last year - also shot with a (borrowed) 100-400, but using a 40D. I was pretty happy with these considering I was shooting into a high, early afternoon Sun.
BTW, as someone who also owns a Canon 55-250, that's a darn nice lens that provides a great bang for the buck ... so yea, the 100-400 is the logical upgrade IMHO and you'll need to spend the bucks ... or wait for the next generation version which is way overdue.
Chris, nice airshow images from your 70-300, and lots better than I've been able to get with mine (on a 30D at the time). My difficulties involved the lens' AF hunting from lock-to-lock searching for my target, which was by then, already gone. Along with IQ and the ability to use the 1.4x TC (with little to no loss of IQ and AF speed), one of the best features of the 300/4L IS is its focus limiter switch, which results in much quicker AF lock on distant targets.
dcains wrote:
My difficulties involved the lens' AF hunting from lock-to-lock searching for my target, which was by then, already gone. Along with IQ and the ability to use the 1.4x TC (with little to no loss of IQ and AF speed), one of the best features of the 300/4L IS is its focus limiter switch, which results in much quicker AF lock on distant targets.
Ditto! The 55-250 has a pretty decent minimum focusing distance ... which is great for that. However, when it loses focus on faraway objects, it takes forever to rachet all the way in and back out ... darn shame they didn't put a focus limiter switch on that lens.
dcains wrote:
Chris, nice airshow images from your 70-300, and lots better than I've been able to get with mine (on a 30D at the time). My difficulties involved the lens' AF hunting from lock-to-lock searching for my target, which was by then, already gone. Along with IQ and the ability to use the 1.4x TC (with little to no loss of IQ and AF speed), one of the best features of the 300/4L IS is its focus limiter switch, which results in much quicker AF lock on distant targets.
I reread my post and sorry it was confusing... I shot those with the 100-400, on my 5D.
I had a few hunting problems at first. The 100-400 racks really quickly when the focus limiter is set, so it didn't cause me much trouble, but I found that the camera/lens would lock on extremely quickly and consistently when I set the lens to infinity while waiting for the shot, then pressed the AF button when framing. This worked better than leaving the lens at whatever focus distance it was at from the previous shot. I used to do this with my old Sigma 70-300 when shooting birds, and it was the only way I could get a decent keeper rate with AF. I bet this technique would help with the Canon 70-300IS, too.
Thanks again for the kind words, everyone. And nice shot of the F-16, Alek; you can see the sun was playing havoc with the shiny surfaces of the plane, but the photo came out very well. I'm amazed you can see the green glow of the HUD!
Hi Rob, before reading the posts on this topic I could already tell you what the answers would be. That being said, I have owned the 70-300 IS and currently own the 100-400L. I absolutlely recommend the 100-400 any day. I never shot the 55-250, so no direct comparison there. However, I was actually quite pleased with the 70-300. AF is a little slow but not nearly as bad as people make it sound. IQ is very good for the price. The IS also works very well and has the newer mode 2 included. My main personal draw back to the lens is that the front element extends and rotates, and that there is no full time manual focusing. If these negatives don't bother you, then this is an excellent choice. If your budget permits, I would get the 100-400L. At, this range I would recommend staying with a lens with IS, however, if you don't that is another way to some money.
wing tong wrote:
if you are considering the bigma, consider the Tamron 200-500 also. Great lens for the money, you'll want a monopod with it. Not the best for BIF but good for slow moving or static objects.
But the OP said:
RobTilly wrote:
to use at airshows and sports
In these cases the slow AF of the Tamron 200-500 might be a serious handicap.
dcains wrote:
I've owned the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS (non-DO) for a few years now, and I can just about guarantee it's not the lens for airshows and sports, as the OP requested. Sorry, but fast AF is not that lens' strong suit by any stretch of the imagination. IQ for static objects is indeed outstanding, though. Perhaps the 100-400L, 300 f/4L (IS or not), or the 400 f/5.6L?
yeah i find the AF pretty dodgy at the long end of the 70-300 IS
Thanks so much for your input. You've all given me some options to think about.
I've actually started to rethink whether I actually need to increase my reach, or if I should maybe concentrate on some better/faster glass.
I went to my local store yesterday to explore a few options, and am now thinking I may in fact drop a little reach, and look at something like the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or perhaps the Canon 70-200 f/4L.
I've looked through a few of my photos, and realized that although I haven't yet done all the types or events I'd like, I actually haven't really needed the full 250mm I have now anyway.
I guess 200mm on a 1.6x crop still equate to a 320mm equivalent.
Out of the two lenses I've mentioned above which would be the better for sports/airshows etc? Would I be better off with the better IQ of the Canon lens, or would the larger aperture of the Sigma be a better bet? Or are there other lenses I should now be looking at?
The large aperture won't help you much for airshows, but it will for sports. It'll help a bit if you're shooting in the afternoon, and a LOT if you're shooting near sundown or under artificial lights. In very low light, even f/2.8 won't be fast enough; many people use fast primes like the 85/1.8 for indoor sports, for example.
I suggest you try shooting with the 55-250 first, and see what it is about it that you don't like... you might find it does the job, and you don't need to buy anything at all!
Hi Rob, dancam again. I see that you are now saying that you potentially want better glass instead of reach. Well, I have to say I totally agree. You will be much happier with good glass verse a lens with a lot of reach that takes mediocre pictures. Have you looked at what FL you most commonly use? Unless you are dead set on getting a zoom there are some faster primes that would be excellent choices for your use. Take a look at the 200 2.8L, 135L, or as CKrueger mentioned, the 85 1.8 or even possibly 100 f/2. These lenses, are relatively cheap for there quality. The 85 and 100 can be found for around 300. The 135L is around 900. The 200 2.8L can be found for around 500-600. Optically, they are all extremely sharp-read the reviews-, and very fast.
I would think that getting an inexpensive, non-reporting 1.4x to use with your existing 55-250 would be the first thing to try if the budget is very limited.
The 100-400 is reportedly "the" airshow lens, if you can swing it.
I own the 55-250 IS, 70-200/4, and 100-400L. The 100-400L is an excellent airshow lens. If you can conceivably afford it, I'd suggest trying to save up for it (or possibly for the replacement, which I'll agree is likely to happen before too long). Image quality is great on crop factor cameras, and mine has good image quality on FF (not all do, so check yours out carefully while you can still return it). Only downside of the lens is the push-pull zooming which I find annoying but usable. More importantly, my experience is that the push-pull DOES create the "dust pump" feature you read about in some places. The inside of the front element of my copy is quite dusty after six years, enough that I'm thinking of sending it to Canon to be cleaned. I'm not sure all copies do this, I don't have enough experience with other copies.
The 70-200/4 is an excellent lens, image quality is great and far superior to the 100-400L on full frame (I've never compared them on a 1.6 crop camera where I doubt the difference would be as noticeable). It is a lot lighter than the 100-400L, but still huge compared to your 55-250 IS. I suspect I'd occasionally find the reach annoyingly short for airshows if I used it for one (I never have tried it). The non-IS version is an amazing amount of bang for the buck.
Whether you get another lens or not, I'd keep the 55-250 IS. The small size and stealthiness of the lens make it really valuable.
I've not shot the 70-300 IS, but I suspect you'd find it not worth the upgrade from the 55-250 IS. The larger size would make it a dubious trade for me, even if the lens were free! That's just a personal tic, and your mileage may differ.
The Sigma 50-500 has been mentioned in some responses. I've not shot with the lens, but I have handled it, and I suspect you'd find the weight annoying without a tripod unless you are in far better shape than me!
I doubt you'll find a 1.4x teleconverter satisfying to use on any of these lenses except the 70-200/4. You'd lose autofocus on most lens/camera combinations, and image quality would be dodgy on the non-L lenses (and in my experience, even with a 1.4x and the "L" 100-400L).
Dark Slider wrote:
I would think that getting an inexpensive, non-reporting 1.4x to use with your existing 55-250 would be the first thing to try if the budget is very limited.
The 100-400 is reportedly "the" airshow lens, if you can swing it.
I would check to see if an EFS lens fits any TC first.
