Lens advice please

TassieD · June 2, 2006

I have been shooting a lot of motor sport lately and have been asked to shoot quite a bit more. I have been using the Sigma 50-500 for all of it so far but am looking to upgrade to a faster lens. The options I am looking at are:

Canon 70-200L F2.8 IS
Canon 70-200L F2.8 non-IS
Canon 70-200L F4
Sigma 70-200 EX APO HSM

I have got myself totally confused about which one will serve my purposes adequately (as budget is a big factor). Currently down here in Aus I have seen the 2.8 IS for $3500, the Non IS for $2500 the F4 for $1300 and the Sigma 2.8 for $1800.

What advice would you guys give as to which lens (I know the 2.8 IS would be the pick) but will the others be suitable also?

wxwax · June 2, 2006

You won't need IS for moving objects, so I'd opt for the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS.

TassieD · June 2, 2006

wxwax wrote:

You won't need IS for moving objects, so I'd opt for the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS.

Cheers Sid,

Have you used the Sigma 2.8 at all? and wondering what the image quality differences may be?

gus · June 2, 2006

No first hand experience but i would look at 70-200 f4 ...as for me ..the f2.8 is just too shallow & thus i wouldnt use it at that setting for motorsport. There is a lot of oxfords between the f2.8 & the f4...maybe even another lens diff if you get my drift.

Or try the 400 f5.6 prime. I love it !

TassieD · June 2, 2006

gus wrote:

No first hand experience but i would look at 70-200 f4 ...as for me ..the f2.8 is just too shallow & thus i wouldnt use it at that setting for motorsport. There is a lot of oxfords between the f2.8 & the f4...maybe even another lens diff if you get my drift.

Or try the 400 f5.6 prime. I love it !

Great advice Gus and yes get your drift. The F4 is definately more cost friendly than the 2.8, will have a look into the prime now. Not something I have considered.

gus · June 2, 2006

TassieD wrote:

Great advice Gus and yes get your drift. The F4 is definately more cost friendly than the 2.8, will have a look into the prime now. Not something I have considered.

Sometimes its a little long with the 20D crop making it 620mm ..im about 100 mt away here...full frame.

You can get some interesting 'heat ' shots with cars at the start of a straight also. These are about 800 mt away full frame.

TassieD · June 2, 2006

gus wrote:

Sometimes its a little long with the 20D crop making it 620mm ..im about 100 mt away here...full frame.

You can get some interesting 'heat ' shots with cars at the start of a straight also. These are about 800 mt away full frame.

Thanks for the links Gus, great shots and can see that it would be very handy for what I am doing. How does it go when the light isn't quite as sunny (nt that you may be able to hep, living in QLD and all

) after all it is going to have to contend with Tasmanian weather conditions lol

Helen S · June 6, 2006

I've had some success in shooting rodeos with my kit lens (Canon EF 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 USM II). Daylight is not too much of a problem, but as soon as the sun starts going down or under not-so-bright lights, even with upping the ISO, my photos still end up blurred. This is no surprise.

Just wondering whether my soon-to-be investment of the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM lens will make a dramatic difference... or is there another lens that I should look at instead? I'm open to suggestions. One plus is that I do have a tripod that gets used to minimise shake, which has paid for itself in a lot of photos.

claudermilk · June 6, 2006

55-200 as kit lens? OK. Anyway, I would expect a dramatic difference between that and the 70-200. Lookng at the Photozone database that 55-200 gets very bad ratings across the board (like if I were looking, I'd run away from it afer seeing those ratings), while the 70-200 IS is one of Canon's very best lenses.

ziggy53 · June 6, 2006

TassieD wrote:

Thanks for the links Gus, great shots and can see that it would be very handy for what I am doing. How does it go when the light isn't quite as sunny (nt that you may be able to hep, living in QLD and all) after all it is going to have to contend with Tasmanian weather conditions lol

That is an interesting point! All of the Canon "L"s you mentioned are weather sealed.

The tripod collar is an optional extra for the f4 version, but included in the other two Canon versions. (It's included in the Sigma package as well.)

ziggy53

gus · June 6, 2006

TassieD wrote:

Thanks for the links Gus, great shots and can see that it would be very handy for what I am doing. How does it go when the light isn't quite as sunny (nt that you may be able to hep, living in QLD and all) after all it is going to have to contend with Tasmanian weather conditions lol

Low light ? Thats why you & i use a canon...up the ISO.

Michiel de Brieder · June 6, 2006

David,

I don't know how you feel about heavy lenses, I for one don't care and I would love to upgrade my F/4 to an F/2.8 BUT...
The F/4 is a stunning, yet very light-weight lens! Compared to the F/2.8 and the F/2.8 IS it weighs nearly nothing

I have a 70-200 F/4 thread somewhere in here...
Here it is:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=7578&highlight=70-200

Helen S · June 6, 2006

claudermilk wrote:

55-200 as kit lens? OK. Anyway, I would expect a dramatic difference between that and the 70-200. Lookng at the Photozone database that 55-200 gets very bad ratings across the board (like if I were looking, I'd run away from it afer seeing those ratings), while the 70-200 IS is one of Canon's very best lenses.

Thanks Chris, yep, I guess that pretty well answers my question.

Here in Australia, well at least at Ted's Cameras, when I bought my 300D a couple of years ago they included the EF-S 18-55mm and the 55-200mm as a twin lens kit. It certainly served its purpose for me as a novice back then, but now it's definitely time to upgrade. The 70-200mm is definitely the first on the list, followed by the 24-70 and 16-35 f2.8's when the $$$ allow... and somewhere down the track if I ever win lotto, a 5D would come in pretty handy, too.

TassieD · June 7, 2006

Thanks everybody for your comments and suggestions. I have something more concrete to go on now and will proceed with your advice in mind.

claudermilk · June 7, 2006

Helen S wrote:

Thanks Chris, yep, I guess that pretty well answers my question.

Here in Australia, well at least at Ted's Cameras, when I bought my 300D a couple of years ago they included the EF-S 18-55mm and the 55-200mm as a twin lens kit. It certainly served its purpose for me as a novice back then, but now it's definitely time to upgrade. The 70-200mm is definitely the first on the list, followed by the 24-70 and 16-35 f2.8's when the $$$ allow... and somewhere down the track if I ever win lotto, a 5D would come in pretty handy, too.

OK, makes sense now. My 18-55 is a nice paperweight--gets no use any more with the 24-70 and a 50/1.8 available. The 70-200 IS is the top of my list, I've gotten addicted to the several copies I've rented/borrowed. For WA, I'm looking hard at the Tokina 12-24--I don't think I'll need f2.8 for the landscapes & it meshes nicely with the 24-70. The 16-35 seems like an odd duck to me with the pricetag and 10-22, 17-40, and 24-70 all being excellent other options at significantly less cost (then the 3rd party competitons thrown in).

Lens advice please

Comments