Telephoto lens?

doggie750

Shack or to whom it may concern,

Ok, was gonna spend some $$$ for a flash (580exII) but I've changed gear to getting a Telephoto lens coz I dont have one. It's a neccessity, right!

These are my options:
1) Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
----fits the budget but worried about the IS (guess can utilize monopod and f/4,

2) Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
----twice more than option#1

3)Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
---- the IDEAL but I need to win the lottery for this or sell my LIVER.

OBJECTIVE:
Need TLens to use when my kids are performing (Dance/ Christmas shows...indoor low light), outdoor soccer games/ swimming...etc.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Shooting without a tripod and no IS at 200mm is going to be difficult on a sunny day, impossible in less than ideal conditions.

Have you looked at other options like the Sigma lenses?

It all depends on what you want to do with it really. If you're always going to be shooting outdoors in good light then your first choice may work, but its not going to be a good 'everyday' lens if you're shooting at full zoom, unless you hve a VERY steady hand.

mystik610

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

Shooting without a tripod and no IS at 200mm is going to be difficult on a sunny day, impossible in less than ideal conditions.

Have you looked at other options like the Sigma lenses?

It all depends on what you want to do with it really. If you're always going to be shooting outdoors in good light then your first choice may work, but its not going to be a good 'everyday' lens if you're shooting at full zoom, unless you hve a VERY steady hand.

+1 on image stabilization

Look into these:

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-18-270mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Nikon/dp/B001DYC0CS

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-250mm-3-5-6-3-Canon-Digital/dp/B001PGXEH4

cokewithvanilla

I have a sigma 18-200 f3.5 ... I got it for like $70 Definitely worth the money

shack

What camera body are you using?

shack

mystik610 wrote: »

+1 on image stabilization

Look into these:

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-18-270mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Nikon/dp/B001DYC0CS

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-250mm-3-5-6-3-Canon-Digital/dp/B001PGXEH4

These are pretty good "all round" lenses. Not great...not terrible...somewhere in the middle. IMO the problem with both of these lenses is twofold.

#1 If the op is looking to shoot indoors at the long end of these lenses, he is getting up into the f/6.3 range at best and very few lenses are at their best wide open. On midlevel lenses you usually need to go at least one if not two stops down to get the ideal aperature. If you want any chance of stopping action you better be shooting in the 1/125-1/200 range...EVEN with IS. So now you are at f/8, 125...better be at ISO 6400 minimum to hope to get enough light (if your camera will go that high) and you will still be contending with noise. With a monopod he might be able to get some good shots. Out doors in good light...probably not a problem. But overcast or at night would be some of the same problems. They are simply not good low light lenses...especially if you are trying to stop action.


#2 These super zooms are nice because they cover such a wide focal length range. But along with that comes a lot of compromises. You are going to give up some sharpness pretty much throughout the focal range. You get a fair amount of barrel distortion at the wide end and they usually don't focus real fast. They are good "all round" lenses...and do everything pretty well...but nothing great.

shack

doggie750 wrote:

Shack or to whom it may concern,

Ok, was gonna spend some $$$ for a flash (580exII) but I've changed gear to getting a Telephoto lens coz I dont have one. It's a neccessity, right!

These are my options:
1) Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
----fits the budget but worried about the IS (guess can utilize monopod and f/4,

2) Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
----twice more than option#1

3)Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
---- the IDEAL but I need to win the lottery for this or sell my LIVER.

OBJECTIVE:
Need TLens to use when my kids are performing (Dance/ Christmas shows...indoor low light), outdoor soccer games/ swimming...etc.

All good lenses. No problem shooting wide open at with any of them. That is what you get when you buy Canon "L" lenses. They are professional grade and pricey. Even with these lenses it is doubtful you can shoot indoors handheld. The lightest one weighs in at 1.6 lbs. Fully extended you probably need to be at 1/250 or better to get it sharp...even wide open. Maybe with the IS version...maybe with the 2.8 w/IS...but still difficult. In good light outdoors you should not have a problem but a monopod would still be helpful just for stability.

If you are on a budget, get the f/4 non IS. Use a monopod indoors...and maybe even outdoors. When the time comes and you want to sell it...you will get most of your money back.

NOW...if it were me and I wanted to shoot indoors and at sporting events...I would buy the Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM. Not a zoom, but a helluva lens. No IS. But is as close to a "L" as you can get without paying the price. Very fast focus, good in low light and on a crop body you are getting the equivalent of a 160mm lens. Plenty long enough for most kids events in school auditoriums or gyms and even sporting events. An extra is this is an excellent portrait lens.

fatchowmein

I love my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non IS) but it is HEAVY. I think twice before lugging it anywhere. The IS version is even heavier and about a grand more expensive. Also, if you have a crop body, this lens is too extreme at times which means you'll end up carrying other lenses resulting in a pretty heavy camera bag, especially on vacation.

Due to the weight, I hope you have the extended battery compartment just to be able get a bigger grip on this beast. Of course, this will add even more weight. With the lens hood on, it's quite the monster. Get ready for folks staring at you and for whatever reason some of those are unfriendly.

Outside, for sporting events on a bright day, it's very good. Indoors, however, is very, very tricky even with the aperature at 2.8. You might be able to take the shot but any movement turns into a blur. Low light is even harder and impossible to capture perfectly most of the time.

I do find it useful for shots at a sporting event indoors (e.g. basketball game). Usually, I'm rooted in one spot and need the zoom function and I believe the 2.8 gets me a few more shots over the 4.0; but, at the end of the day, I take as many shots as possible and sort it out after the game. I toss most of them. I do use a Manfrotto monopod.

Image quality is gorgeous if you do your job and light permitting. Supposedly, the 2.8L non-IS is sharper than the IS version.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

doggie750

shack wrote: »

What camera body are you using?

My gear: Canon 30D
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II


Shack, as always thanks man! really leaning toward the Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM as you suggested but kindly confirm if this is a good match with the package above.

Is monopod needed with this lens or I can just use the knee/ elbow (poor man who cannot afford the IS models)technique?

doggie750

btw....my 2nd choice Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens .....any 2cents on this?

doggie750

doggie750 wrote: »

btw....my 2nd choice Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens .....any 2cents on this?

this is my 2nd choice instead: Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM....

that leads between the two, the 100mm f2 or the 85 f1.8?

BeRad

I have the Tamron 90mm macro. It is a great lens for macro shooting and occasionally for a prime, but I still needed a further reach.

I now also have the Canon 70-300 USM IS and I love it.

If you are shooting indoors you should have IS and the lowest apature you can afford.

Check out local camera shops for rental options. Before spending serious dough, maybe rent one or two to see how they work for you in your specific shooting situation. How often are you going to need such a lens? Perhaps it might be more worth while to just rent the longer lens when you need it and buy yourself that flash which you would probably use much more often.

shack

doggie750 wrote:

this is my 2nd choice instead: Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM....

that leads between the two, the 100mm f2 or the 85 f1.8?

The 85 f/1.8 has a huge following but the 100 f/2 is probably it's equal. I recommend the 100 because it gives a little more reach (22mm on your body)...not much...but enought to consider. Either of those lenses will work pretty well indoors at a play or concert hand held. They are fast enough and light enough, even without IS to do a good job. And the plus is they are tack sharp...both of them.

doggie750

shack wrote: »

The 85 f/1.8 has a huge following but the 100 f/2 is probably it's equal. I recommend the 100 because it gives a little more reach (22mm on your body)...not much...but enought to consider. Either of those lenses will work pretty well indoors at a play or concert hand held. They are fast enough and light enough, even without IS to do a good job. And the plus is they are tack sharp...both of them.

Thanks Shack, yeah might pull the trigger on the 100mf2 however i saw this one and I am back to being confused http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00004XOM3/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1298335008&sr=8-2

macro is really worth it? considering the non macro has f2 versus f2.8 w/ it.

shack

doggie750 wrote:

Thanks Shack, yeah might pull the trigger on the 100mf2 however i saw this one and I am back to being confused http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00004XOM3/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1298335008&sr=8-2

macro is really worth it? considering the non macro has f2 versus f2.8 w/ it.

A macro lens is designed give a flat field, minimum distortion and sharpness when focused at its closest distance (usually only a few inches), and at that distance provide a magnification of 1x (life size).

This particular lens allows you to focus within 6 inches of a subject for macro photography. It will probably perform similar to the 100 f/2 in the other ways you intend to use it...however it is bigger/longer, heavier and more expensive by at least $100. The ability go get macro capabilities for $100 more is not a bad deal, but the added length and weight may make it a little more difficult for your original intent...indoor, low light, handheld shooting.

The bottom line is?are you really going to be shooting many bugs, butterflies, tiny objects, etc.? If so...you also will need a good tripod that will allow you to get really low. Macro work is one area of photography where a tripod is a must. If this is where you want to take your photography then it may be worth it.

doggie750

Much thanks to all of you especially to you SHACK!

Not a bug's life here so I pulled the trigger on the 100mm F2, can't wait 'till I get my hands on it. Hope by next week

I NOMINATE SHACK TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE NEW CLUB, polkPHOTO :biggrin: