If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon kit lens review critiques show a pattern | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 198 | August 21st 05 01:07 PM |
FS: Schneider Large-Format Lens TRADE!!! | Bill Gillooly | General Equipment For Sale | 2 | February 20th 05 06:43 AM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
FS: Cameras For Parts | Jerry Dycus | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 5 | September 27th 03 12:51 PM |
FS: Tamron 300mm f/2.8 manual lens for Canon, Olympus, Nikon, Minolta, Contax. | John Gaasland | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | July 30th 03 04:39 AM |