Lens advice

[frostie]

Hi guys,
Im in the market for a new lens. I'm looking at the Canon L-Series lenses and was wondering if anyone has experience of the 70-200mm lenses? I've seen that there are a lot of variations of the lens with the f2.8 being considerably more expensive, and bulky, than the f4 variation. Is it worth spending extra on this lens? Obviously in low lighting conditions etc. it would better but given that I pretty much only shoot sport I will, by and large, be in optimal lighting conditions so it seems quite an expensive luxury. The other option that I've found is to buy the f4 lens without image stabilization and again this is half the price but given that I'd be shooting high speed sport would I be right in saying that this is something that would be hugely benefical?
Thanks!

[Peter Mallett]

This was taken with the F4 version. http://www.flickr.com/photos/4098191...7625476468348/ Sligtly over exposed but you get the idea.

[bella]

i've just had a similar debate, frostie.

if you're planning to do "proper" trackside with it, 200mm will be a bit short so you'll probably want to put an extender on it. on that basis the 2.8 would be better. the f4 with an extender on it could well be a bit average.

my personal opinion of image stabilising is that it's a load of pants - i turned it on on my nikon lens this weekend and tbh, didn't see the difference. but light conditions were fairly reasonable so shutter speeds weren't a problem.

ps. second hand prices are more reasonable than new prices, if you're not looking already! i think just buying the best glass you can afford is fairly good advice

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by bella

my personal opinion of image stabilising is that it's a load of pants - i turned it on on my nikon lens this weekend and tbh, didn't see the difference. but light conditions were fairly reasonable so shutter speeds weren't a problem.

I'm with bella on this - I turn off the image stabiliser on my lens for motorsport photography - it makes a proper mess of panning shots for example,you'll be panning with the car then the stabiliser kicks in and there's a noticeable jerk in the image in the viewfinder as the lens tries to do its stuff - this really puts you off as the car appears to 'jump back' along the track so you slow you panning down to try an re-catch the car - by the time you've done all that the car has either buggered off or you've got a nice stabilised photo of half of it.

For other photography where the subject isn't moving then the stabiliser is fine. For me IS isn't a must have by any means - I'd rather have the extra f stops.

[Big Lens]

Remember to consider which body you are using with the lens.

All EOS bodies have autofocus sensors that are sensitive at F5.6, some have a central F8 sensor that allows autofocus at F5.6 + 1.4x or F4 + 2x but some have F2.8 sensors as well which are a lot more accurate and quicker but wont come in to play with an F4 lens.

A good explanation can be found here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/p...Explained.aspx

[frostie]

Cool thanks guys really appreciate the feedback! Bella I think you're right and I'll probably look for something a bit bigger for the trackside stuff. I used a 200mm at Singapore but obviously you're very close to the action there as opposed to say Silverstone or other circuits so I might look at the 100-400mm lens instead as it should be pretty versatile for shooting into garages etc.

I was searching online and saw that the second hand market is quite good value but I was told to go to onestopdigital.com and they can offer a three year warranty with the lens so I'd say that might end up holding a bit of sway with me....I have a terrific tendency of breaking things!

[andrewc]

The 100-400 is quite an old lens now. Many do not like the push/pull zoom system and the friction ring is actually made of cardboard so don't get it wet. Whilst the age of the lens doesn't really affect the optics, the IS system is comparatively primitive version compared to those in use on the more recently introduced lenses.

I use a 300mm f/4 prime on one camera body and have a 70-200 f/4 on the other.

All Canon L series lens hold their values quite well.

[bella]

Originally Posted by frostie

Cool thanks guys really appreciate the feedback! Bella I think you're right and I'll probably look for something a bit bigger for the trackside stuff. I used a 200mm at Singapore but obviously you're very close to the action there as opposed to say Silverstone or other circuits so I might look at the 100-400mm lens instead as it should be pretty versatile for shooting into garages etc.

I was searching online and saw that the second hand market is quite good value but I was told to go to onestopdigital.com and they can offer a three year warranty with the lens so I'd say that might end up holding a bit of sway with me....I have a terrific tendency of breaking things!

see, the flexibility thing was why i was looking at the 2.8 - you can put a 2x extender on it for trackside and have 400mm at ~4-6 but when you're a bit closer to the action you just take off the extender and you've got a really good quality shorter lens for people/*really* trackside. currently i use an 80-400 (i think) and that's versatile, but it's not great at 400mm because it's only a 4-5.6(ish) from 80 upwards.

if you're worried about a warranty, then john lewis sell the big ass lenses and their 2.8 and 4 versions both come with a 2 year warranty. i always buy my cameras and big electrical stuff from them now for that reason. the price might not be quite as cheap but the warranty adds a lot of value.

[frostie]

Originally Posted by bella

see, the flexibility thing was why i was looking at the 2.8 - you can put a 2x extender on it for trackside and have 400mm at ~4-6 but when you're a bit closer to the action you just take off the extender and you've got a really good quality shorter lens for people/*really* trackside. currently i use an 80-400 (i think) and that's versatile, but it's not great at 400mm because it's only a 4-5.6(ish) from 80 upwards.

if you're worried about a warranty, then john lewis sell the big ass lenses and their 2.8 and 4 versions both come with a 2 year warranty. i always buy my cameras and big electrical stuff from them now for that reason. the price might not be quite as cheap but the warranty adds a lot of value.

Looks like there's pros and cons with them all! I found a shop over here that's selling both of the lenses so I'll go in for a test session at the weekend and see what I prefer. I'll keep you's posted!

[GORDON STREETER]

Although a lens extender is a more affordable way of increasing focal length they won't be as good as a lens designed for the purpose.
With a 2x extender you will loose 2 stops so less depth of field, also it will slow down auto focus and sometimes it wont work at all with some lenses.
Obviously camera shake will come into it but it would anyway with a longer lens .
As long as you have good light they can work ok but useless in poor conditions, one other thing unless the main lens is top quality it will enhance any image degradation that it has.
I have used them in the past and although they are handy the are not the "bees knees" IMHO

[Peter Mallett]

I shouldn't look at these threads. I was wandering around Dubai Mall a few weeks ago and found the Canon Camera Shop.

The F2.8 300mm Telephoto was selling at around £5k. I walked away reciting *remember the new car, remember the new car*

[MikeHoyer]

I think you should buy it Peter - you won't regret it!

In my experience the 2x converter seems to work better on the 70-200 2.8 than it does on the 300 2.8, for whatever reason. I've got the old non-IS 70-200 though.

[Sodemo]

Both of these were taken on my 200mm Nikon lens. Its the F2.8 version.

It depends what body you have also. An APS-C camera will be often better for telephoto use due to its longer reach, however ultimate pro's will of course have a full-frame and just buy the mega-expensive lenses. I use a D7000 but I also have a D90 and recently a D600.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/87779757@N08/8589567204/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/87779757@N08/8623300349/

[bella]

ooh you have a d7000? i'm about to get one of those, whats your opinion on it and the overexposure tendencies? have you tweaked the white balance settings?

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

An APS-C camera will be often better for telephoto use due to its longer reach

Wrong. This is my pet hate in the world of photography.

There is no difference in the reach between a full frame camera and an APSC camera - the magnification provided by the lens is unchanged. The difference is that you only get 2/3rds of the image on an APSC. You would get exactly the same image by cropping a FF picture to the central 2/3rds, except you have more versatility because it doesn't have to be the centre if you missed it.

[andrewc]

However, you tend to get a higher pixel density on an APS-C. Good for cropping. Less good for digital noise on higher ISO settings.

[frostie]

Ended up going with the 100-400mm lens. I was really disappointed with my photos after the first day but race day was much better! On Saturday, my first time shooting with the lens, I had horrible grainy images with loads of noise everywhere. The settings that I normally use with my old lens have a high ISO number but with the new one the same settings produced pretty dire results.

From hundreds of images there were only a handful of decent images. Once I turned down the ISO things were much better. Far from perfect but at least I was able to get some clear shots so hopefully at my next race I'll be able to get everything working better!

Here's a couple of shots from the weekend:

[Peter Mallett]

Yes, I run at max 400 asa and mostly, because it's generally sunny here, at 100.