Suggestions On A Lens
I'm picking up a 40D soon and I want to get some suggestions on a good lens to go with it. If I was super-duper-ballin' like that I'd pick up a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L, but unfortunately it's a bit too far out of my price range, ha. I plan on using it largely for motorsports, mostly to get decent pics @ Turner and Gresham and FD when it rolls around. I'd like to spend less than $300 if possible.
Does anyone have suggestions?
Originally Posted by Lucky SC
"DON'T FLOOD THE CAR PICS SECTION WITH YOUR BULLSHIT
FORMULA D PICS" SQUAD MEMBER
well if you dont want to spend too much and need a decent telephoto lens, check out the Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6. you can pick one up for around $200-$300. But I would highly recommend saving up for a nice L series.
if you're doing automotive, you should be ok with a slower lens because you will rarely need the speed in the daylight, but if you want to shoot anything inside, a 4.0-5.6 will shit in your face unless the camera has crazy ISO capability.
You don't need to get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (which is way overpriced). Sigma makes a 70-200 f/2.8 that you can usually find for $600-$700 used. Tamron makes one as well.
If you do go the other route, do yourself a favor and definitely DON'T get the Canon 75-300 (which is not a great lens). There are the Canon 70-300 and the Canon 55-250, which are very similar in performance and image quality (and both better than the 75-300).
The 55-250 is cheaper and lighter, so I'd go that route if you want to spend less than $300.... but it is going to suck for action/sports unless its a bright, sunny day.
Way over priced? Thats all you have to say? Im honestly not surprised that you put this out there.
To the OP:
IF you really WANT good advice. Pick up the Canon 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS) its much lighter weight than its 2.8 IS counterpart, decent for bright nice days, and still sharp as a tack. And its a good piece of L glass. You can get one for about 500 used. If you want, I know someone locally selling one used for that price. PM me if you want her info.
OP: Nothing wrong with the 70-200 f/4, but at f/4 it will be too slow for most non-professional indoor sports/action (or even outdoors on overcast days). Everyone I know who has the f/4 lens wishes it was a f/2.8 when they take it indoors.
The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is definitely overpriced. The Sigma is just as sharp (sharper at some apertures) for about $600-$800 less. the Sigma also comes stock with a tripod mounting ring and lens hood. A lens hood for the Canon will cost you an extra ~60-$70.
In the end its your money. $700 can go pretty far without being wasted on the brand name on the side of the lens. There are companies besides Canon that make excellent optics. Just make sure you ask around (and do research) before you buy something....even Canon makes some crap lenses. Also, try not to put too much stock in the musings of fan-boy brand-whores.
P.S. I own the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and have tested it against the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8.
P.P.S. Sigma is coming out with a NEW 70-200mm f/2.8 and has discontinued the old one (having added image stabilization). You'd better hurry if you want to find a used one.
Last edited by Tarzanman; 04-26-2010 at 03:32 PM.
1. Pricing is your opinion only. Someone asking for lens purchase advice needs facts, and not opinions. I had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM version, and while it was a good lens since I was on a budget a while back ill tell you right now its not as sharp as my current 70-200 2.8 L (IS)
And as far as you saying the 70-200 f/4 would fail in most "non-pro indoor sports /action", I dont think that applies here as the OP stated: He plans on using it largely for motorsports, mostly to get decent pics @ Turner and Gresham and FD when it rolls around.
The 70-200 f/4 would be fine for that, considering his budget and wanting a good quality lens.
Nemesis: Fine fan-boy. Here are your facts:
Lens test of Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM vs Canon 70-200 IS f/2.8. You can click around to choose different combinations of aperture and focal length of the two lenses and decide for yourself if the Canon is any better (much less $700 better).
OP: With a 40D that goes from ISO 100-1600, I would probably go with the lens that gave me a 1-stop advantage.... especially if the image quality was the same and the prices were similar.
I've used my Sigma 70-200 indoors for ice hockey and broomball photos and I had the ISO as low as I dared at 1600 with the lens wide open while still exposing to the left.
I could have shot at ISO 3200 with the f/4 if I had to, but a 40D would need a flash, or expanded ISO (bad idea unless you like noise), or a different lens to get those photos.
Again, there is nothing wrong with the 70-200 f/4, but i guarantee that you'll end up wishing that you had the extra stop when you go inside.
I'm not a Canon user, and have several Sigma lenses, so I'm the opposite of a fan boy, but I moved all around that test and the Canon was almost always sharper.
I've held off on buying this lens because of some of the reviews that I've read have given it such mediocre reviews. I love my 24-70 (even more than just the value), but I think Sigma has work to do on this range before it is quality competitive.
The only focal length I see a notable difference (Canon being better) throughout the entire aperture range is at 200mm. Everything else is a wash.
I stopped reading your fucking babble after this.
Most people know I used to shoot Nikon, and I always give honest advice when I recommend something out, Im far from a fan boy. I personally owned almost all of Sigmas line of lenses other than their primes. I even like the Bigma, so honestly yeah Im not a fan boy. I have nothing else to say especially to some joker like yourself.
You keep saying that, yet you keep replying to my posts. Even the ones where I'm not talking to you at all.
Obsess much?
LENS FIGHT, LENS FIGHT, LENS FIGHT!
My lens would beat up his lens for sure.
bottom line... if you only want to spend 300 you are going to have to look for a used lens that probably will not fit your wants and needs.
my advice: the 70-200 f4L would be your best option by far.... and if you got a newer high ISO camera it would complement that cheaper "slower" glass's performance. (BTW this combo would be 1500-2000)
you do have to accept that you are going to have to spend some cash to get the performance you want... just saying... I want a fast nice car... they cost more than a busted slow car... right?
Reply With Quote
