Canon lens upgrades for available light action photography

I've got a 300D w/ kit lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6) and a 75-300 f/4-5.6
Tamron telephoto. It has served well for my very first non-P&S rig. My
main subject is horses and riding, indoors or outdoors, and it can easily
show the limitations of this setup. The big shortcoming of my gear is light
collection ability and/or noise at higher ISO 400 and 800. Most of my shots
are at 50-200mm, so of course that gaping hole from 55 to 75 needs to be
filled. Horses are always in motion, so shutter speed must remain 1/250 or
faster, and I often shoot with my lenses fully opened up.
I see three upgrade options:

1) Save my nickels (or endear the credit card company), and buy fast
L-series lenses. $2900.
- Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
- Canon 24-70 f/2.8L

2) Go the midrange and get somewhat better glass and speed, and enjoy larger
zoom range as a side benefit. $1250
- Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 or Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
- Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

3) Try a versatile walkabout zoom and buy a couple affordable primes for
low-light (when I won't need much zoom range). $700.
- Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3
- Canon f/1.8 50mm
- Canon f/2.0 100mm

Obviously option 1 is 'best', but I think that will remain way out of my
financial picture, and trying to fit it in now is a bad idea for me. With
no return on investment it's simply money lost. Option 2 is more affordable
and offers some fast performance (on paper), but is still not cheap and I
worry won't perform well at f/2.8, which makes me wonder if I go that far
I'll regret not getting option 1 in the first place. Option 3 is best for
avail. light, but b/c I deal with lot of dust and I have only one camera
body it's shaky. Indoors I'll give up zoom and number of shots if it means
I'll get acceptable shots where the others lenses would get none.
I would love any advice I can get. As for each lens, I'll be reading
the reviews with a grain of salt and would like suggestions about what would
help me most. What I really need insight on is:

1) Will any of these options make a minor or major improvement in my indoor
shooting?

2) Do the advantages of the L-series zooms at f/2.8 show up using only a
300D? Will I ever want the IS if I carry a monopod for 150-200mm shooting?

3) Should I worry about getting the fastest lens I can afford (ISO 400 at
f/2.8), or will getting good glass and higher ISO do better? (ISO 800 at
f/3.5)

4) Are my wants different from the average users of this equipment, such
that I should consider it when reading the reviews 'out there'?

Dave

David Geesaman wrote:
I've got a 300D w/ kit lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6) and a 75-300 f/4-5.6
Tamron telephoto. It has served well for my very first non-P&S rig. My
main subject is horses and riding, indoors or outdoors, and it can easily
show the limitations of this setup. The big shortcoming of my gear is light
collection ability and/or noise at higher ISO 400 and 800. Most of my shots
are at 50-200mm, so of course that gaping hole from 55 to 75 needs to be
filled. Horses are always in motion, so shutter speed must remain 1/250 or
faster, and I often shoot with my lenses fully opened up.
I see three upgrade options:

1) Save my nickels (or endear the credit card company), and buy fast
L-series lenses. $2900.
- Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
- Canon 24-70 f/2.8L

2) Go the midrange and get somewhat better glass and speed, and enjoy larger
zoom range as a side benefit. $1250
- Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 or Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
- Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

3) Try a versatile walkabout zoom and buy a couple affordable primes for
low-light (when I won't need much zoom range). $700.
- Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3
- Canon f/1.8 50mm
- Canon f/2.0 100mm

Obviously option 1 is 'best', but I think that will remain way out of my
financial picture, and trying to fit it in now is a bad idea for me. With
no return on investment it's simply money lost. Option 2 is more affordable
and offers some fast performance (on paper), but is still not cheap and I
worry won't perform well at f/2.8, which makes me wonder if I go that far
I'll regret not getting option 1 in the first place. Option 3 is best for
avail. light, but b/c I deal with lot of dust and I have only one camera
body it's shaky. Indoors I'll give up zoom and number of shots if it means
I'll get acceptable shots where the others lenses would get none.
I would love any advice I can get. As for each lens, I'll be reading
the reviews with a grain of salt and would like suggestions about what would
help me most. What I really need insight on is:

1) Will any of these options make a minor or major improvement in my indoor
shooting?

2) Do the advantages of the L-series zooms at f/2.8 show up using only a
300D? Will I ever want the IS if I carry a monopod for 150-200mm shooting?

3) Should I worry about getting the fastest lens I can afford (ISO 400 at
f/2.8), or will getting good glass and higher ISO do better? (ISO 800 at
f/3.5)

4) Are my wants different from the average users of this equipment, such
that I should consider it when reading the reviews 'out there'?

Dave


I shoot softball and some equestrian and have the 300D. After much
research and aginizing, I went with the Sigma 24-60 2.8 and the Sigma
70-200 2.8 with a Sigma TC (2x). Gets the indoors/low light shots but
is a tad soft at 2.8. However, results are tack-sharp at 8.0 at either
end of both lenses. At 200ISO, f2.8 will give me 1/750 midday to 1/125
in twilight. As it gets darker, I up the ISO to get the shots. Indoors
in equestrian events can be more of a challenge due to barn lighting. It
varies and I sometimes end up pushing ISO or speed...with similar
results. Don't know how soft the L galss is wide open but I just
couldn't justify the 30-35% price difference...

Gambo wrote:
David Geesaman wrote:
1) Will any of these options make a minor or major improvement in my
indoor shooting?

2) Do the advantages of the L-series zooms at f/2.8 show up using only
a 300D? Will I ever want the IS if I carry a monopod for 150-200mm
shooting?

3) Should I worry about getting the fastest lens I can afford (ISO 400
at f/2.8), or will getting good glass and higher ISO do better? (ISO
800 at f/3.5)

4) Are my wants different from the average users of this equipment,
such that I should consider it when reading the reviews 'out there'?

Dave

I shoot softball and some equestrian and have the 300D. After much
research and aginizing, I went with the Sigma 24-60 2.8 and the Sigma
70-200 2.8 with a Sigma TC (2x). Gets the indoors/low light shots but
is a tad soft at 2.8. However, results are tack-sharp at 8.0 at either
end of both lenses. At 200ISO, f2.8 will give me 1/750 midday to 1/125
in twilight. As it gets darker, I up the ISO to get the shots. Indoors
in equestrian events can be more of a challenge due to barn lighting. It
varies and I sometimes end up pushing ISO or speed...with similar
results. Don't know how soft the L galss is wide open but I just
couldn't justify the 30-35% price difference...

Wow, that was quick, thanks. Is the Sigma 70-200 any sharper at f/2.8
w/o the 2x TC in places? The reviews I read all suggest the f/2.8Ls
*are* tack sharp fully open, so you do gain something. Since the only
thing I get are slightly better photos (which earn me nearly nothing),
if I buy the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 I could look to borrow/test a 2.8L and
upgrade if the comparison shows results.
I'm looking for a local camera club where I can find some folks who
might let me snap in their better lenses for some comparison shots. If
that turns out well I think I could try some of all of these lenses
firsthand.

Dave

"David Geesaman" wrote in message
...
I've got a 300D w/ kit lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6) and a 75-300 f/4-5.6
Tamron telephoto. It has served well for my very first non-P&S rig. My
main subject is horses and riding, indoors or outdoors, and it can easily
show the limitations of this setup. The big shortcoming of my gear is
light
collection ability and/or noise at higher ISO 400 and 800. Most of my
shots
are at 50-200mm, so of course that gaping hole from 55 to 75 needs to be
filled. Horses are always in motion, so shutter speed must remain 1/250
or
faster, and I often shoot with my lenses fully opened up.
I see three upgrade options:

1) Save my nickels (or endear the credit card company), and buy fast
L-series lenses. $2900.
- Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
- Canon 24-70 f/2.8L

2) Go the midrange and get somewhat better glass and speed, and enjoy
larger
zoom range as a side benefit. $1250
- Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 or Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
- Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

3) Try a versatile walkabout zoom and buy a couple affordable primes for
low-light (when I won't need much zoom range). $700.
- Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3
- Canon f/1.8 50mm
- Canon f/2.0 100mm

Obviously option 1 is 'best', but I think that will remain way out of
my
financial picture, and trying to fit it in now is a bad idea for me. With
no return on investment it's simply money lost. Option 2 is more
affordable
and offers some fast performance (on paper), but is still not cheap and I
worry won't perform well at f/2.8, which makes me wonder if I go that far
I'll regret not getting option 1 in the first place. Option 3 is best for
avail. light, but b/c I deal with lot of dust and I have only one camera
body it's shaky.

So go with a good, cheap prime, an 70-200 L IS f/2.8 zoom, and get a 350D as
a 2nd body so you don't have to switch lenses. $2500 to $2800 and you end
up with two cameras instead of one. Forget option 2 above.

Greg

G.T. wrote:
So go with a good, cheap prime, an 70-200 L IS f/2.8 zoom, and get a 350D as
a 2nd body so you don't have to switch lenses. $2500 to $2800 and you end
up with two cameras instead of one. Forget option 2 above.

Interesting. That makes a lot more sense (and versatility) than 2
L-series zooms. Unfortunately $2500+ is still a long stretch, like I
said before. Do you feel IS is needed? (that would save $650)

Regarding Option 2, why should I forget it? It would seem if I want to
upgrade, they could be sold for about 75% of the purchase price and the
money put toward the L-series. Working my way up the cost ladder thru
experience doesn't seem like a bad idea in any way.

Dave

David Geesaman wrote:
Gambo wrote:

David Geesaman wrote:

1) Will any of these options make a minor or major improvement in my
indoor shooting?

2) Do the advantages of the L-series zooms at f/2.8 show up using
only a 300D? Will I ever want the IS if I carry a monopod for
150-200mm shooting?

3) Should I worry about getting the fastest lens I can afford (ISO
400 at f/2.8), or will getting good glass and higher ISO do better?
(ISO 800 at f/3.5)

4) Are my wants different from the average users of this equipment,
such that I should consider it when reading the reviews 'out there'?

Dave

I shoot softball and some equestrian and have the 300D. After much
research and aginizing, I went with the Sigma 24-60 2.8 and the Sigma
70-200 2.8 with a Sigma TC (2x). Gets the indoors/low light shots but
is a tad soft at 2.8. However, results are tack-sharp at 8.0 at
either end of both lenses. At 200ISO, f2.8 will give me 1/750 midday
to 1/125 in twilight. As it gets darker, I up the ISO to get the
shots. Indoors in equestrian events can be more of a challenge due to
barn lighting. It varies and I sometimes end up pushing ISO or
speed...with similar results. Don't know how soft the L galss is wide
open but I just couldn't justify the 30-35% price difference...


Wow, that was quick, thanks. Is the Sigma 70-200 any sharper at
f/2.8 w/o the 2x TC in places? The reviews I read all suggest the
f/2.8Ls *are* tack sharp fully open, so you do gain something. Since
the only thing I get are slightly better photos (which earn me nearly
nothing), if I buy the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 I could look to borrow/test a
2.8L and upgrade if the comparison shows results.
I'm looking for a local camera club where I can find some folks who
might let me snap in their better lenses for some comparison shots. If
that turns out well I think I could try some of all of these lenses
firsthand.

Dave
The 70-200 was soft even w/o the TC...I get shots I couldn't get before
(quite flexible in that regard), but I have to be cognizant of
over-cropping and introducing greater perception of the soft
focus/jaggies. I am happy with the purchase but recognize the limitations.

David

Go for the L if you can afford them even if this does seem costly. Its more
costly to go the route I did. That is the non Canon lenses followed by
disappointment and then having to buy the good lenses to get the quality I
wanted in the first place. I now own mainly L series lenses except for the
50mm 1.8 fixed and the 28 - 135 IS (plus a kit lens that came with the 20D).
These are matched to a 20D body. The IS can be a god send if you shoot in
low light and cannot use a tripod or monopod. The 70 to 200 F4 L series is
a great lens and I use that for horse shows (mainly outside) and its
fantastic, light and quick focusing. I would go for the 2.8 if I could have
afforded it. However, with the 20D I can crank the ISO TO 800 and with the
F4 lens still get a bloody sharp print. I also have the 400 fixed F4.6 L
series which is also a fantastic bang for buck lens. There are some non
Canon lenses that are cheaper and have good reps. A little bit of research
will soon track these down for you. I have used both SIGMA and Tamron and
am finally back to all Canon. This decision was made on compatibility and
quality grounds. I also lost money on the non L series lenses I have
purchased and subsequently resold when I wasn't happy with them. This
hasn't been the case with the 1 L series lens I sold. Long term its cheaper
to go the expensive route in the first place if you can find the cash up
front.

regards

Don from Down Under.
"David Geesaman" wrote in message
...
G.T. wrote:
So go with a good, cheap prime, an 70-200 L IS f/2.8 zoom, and get a 350D
as
a 2nd body so you don't have to switch lenses. $2500 to $2800 and you
end
up with two cameras instead of one. Forget option 2 above.

Interesting. That makes a lot more sense (and versatility) than 2
L-series zooms. Unfortunately $2500+ is still a long stretch, like I said
before. Do you feel IS is needed? (that would save $650)

Regarding Option 2, why should I forget it? It would seem if I want to
upgrade, they could be sold for about 75% of the purchase price and the
money put toward the L-series. Working my way up the cost ladder thru
experience doesn't seem like a bad idea in any way.

Dave

"David Geesaman" wrote in message
...
G.T. wrote:
So go with a good, cheap prime, an 70-200 L IS f/2.8 zoom, and get a
350D as
a 2nd body so you don't have to switch lenses. $2500 to $2800 and you
end
up with two cameras instead of one. Forget option 2 above.

Interesting. That makes a lot more sense (and versatility) than 2
L-series zooms. Unfortunately $2500+ is still a long stretch, like I
said before. Do you feel IS is needed? (that would save $650)

I still don't have an IS lens so can't contribute there. I do have a
70-200L f/4.0 and many times wish I had at least the f/2.8. I have a
feeling if I had the f/2.8 I would want the IS version.


Regarding Option 2, why should I forget it? It would seem if I want to
upgrade, they could be sold for about 75% of the purchase price and the
money put toward the L-series. Working my way up the cost ladder thru
experience doesn't seem like a bad idea in any way.


As far as resale I'd say more like 80% for the mid-level Canon, but only 70%
for the Sigmas. I have a Tamron 24-135 as my main lens but it's focus speed
is frustrating compared to the Canon's I have. That's probably biasing me
against the Sigma solution.

Greg