Shopping Questions...Or help me spend money! :)

Kagan

I am about get a new lens for my 30d so far i have the 18-55 kit lens, and the 50 1.4.(which I love) Now here is a little background.

In 2 weeks I will be taking a cruise to Cozumel, Costa Maya, Belize and going to visit some Mayan ruins.(and im sure see other breathtaking landscapes etc)

I have 3 boys all playing Baseball, Basketball, Soccer and who knows what other sports this year. I have borrowed a friends Promaster 70-300 AF LD5.6 The reach is fabulous. It lets me reach across the entire field at this level of play.(The oldest one is 10) BUT the focus is horribly slow. The pictures are noisy even under perfect conditions. It is still so much better than trying to get nice closeup shots of them with the 50mm.
I have been looking at the 70-200 2.8L But obviously its horribly expensive. And on top of that I dont have that same 300 reach. I understand I can get a 1.4 or 2 extender but I dont have the courage to spend that and THEN tell my wife I need to spend MORE. :rofl I would like the ability to use it in low light when they are inside a gym. It may be the brand of course but this promaster at 5.6 hunts forever in low light. Is a 70-200 4.0 worth considering?

The other issue is....Is the Image stabilization worth it?? I have heard in sports its not a big deal, its a must, its overrated, its underrated...etc.

Also is there another brand(I have an open mind) that will give me the sharpness I want?(I understand that I still have to be able to take the shot properly hehe)

Im my ideal world I would be spending around a 1000 dollars. But I am willing to spend more if someone can help justify in my mind the added expense of the IS version( or something else) I just dont want to buy a lens of this expense and hate that I got it instead of something else 3 months from now.

Thank you all!

cunarder534

I love my 70-200 2.8 with IS. I tend to use the IS constantly.
My hands tend to shake a lot. If you need the reach I use the canon 2x tc and haven't had any problem with it. I know people talk a lot about image degradation, but I don't see it much. Maybe it is my eyes.

Here is a sample with the 2xtc at 400mm and it has been cropped.


Hope this helps. I guess there is always a bigma, but it doesn't have the low light capability.

ziggy53

I use the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L for a lot of indoor stuff. I'll be using it for a college graduation tonight! (My middle daughter is getting her Associates tonight.)

It's not the IS version, but I'll be using a monopod and ISO 1600 and flash, so it'll be fine.

I shot my oldest daughter in the same gym last year, with the same lens and a Canon dRebel 350D/XT, and it worked out great. This year I'll use the 1D MKII, so it should be better. (That's the plan anyway.)

I shot night football last year and the year before, and I didn't miss the IS at all. Then again, I used a full tripod.

For sports stuff, I found it much better to just crop the image than to use a telextender. For event stuff, weddings and Boy Scout stuff, family gatherings and such, I just position myself within the reach of the lens.

I tried two copies of the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM, and I found them both lacking wide open. The "Macro" version of the Sigma has since been released and is supposed to be a bit better, and many folks have the Sigma and like it, so I might have gotten two bad copies.

The Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L is just amazing, even wide open, and it's just a nod over $1100USD.

gryphonslair99

ziggy53 wrote:

I use the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L for a lot of indoor stuff. I'll be using it for a college graduation tonight! (My middle daughter is getting her Associates tonight.)

It's not the IS version, but I'll be using a monopod and ISO 1600 and flash, so it'll be fine.

I shot my oldest daughter in the same gym last year, with the same lens and a Canon dRebel 350D/XT, and it worked out great. This year I'll use the 1D MKII, so it should be better. (That's the plan anyway.)

I shot night football last year and the year before, and I didn't miss the IS at all. Then again, I used a full tripod.

For sports stuff, I found it much better to just crop the image than to use a telextender. For event stuff, weddings and Boy Scout stuff, family gatherings and such, I just position myself within the reach of the lens.

I tried two copies of the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM, and I found them both lacking wide open. The "Macro" version of the Sigma has since been released and is supposed to be a bit better, and many folks have the Sigma and like it, so I might have gotten two bad copies.

The Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L is just amazing, even wide open, and it's just a nod over $1100USD.

Ziggy53, Congrats to your daugher. That is great. I'll be using my 70-200 f2.8 Sunday when my middle son graduates with 2 bachelors degrees. Monopod, ISO 1600. Guess we have this graduation thing figured out.

Nikolai

And if you guys had IS...
... you wouldn't have to mess with monopod:-)

If you can afford it, IS *IS* worth every penny!

Art Scott

I have an olde Siggy (not Ziggy) 70-210 APO and just love it...I am hoping that when I decide to move on from my KM 7D's that the newer Siggy 70-200's will work as well as this models has.....

Promaster is not a truly inexpensive lens...but their equiptment I have used is cheap.....I had to purchase one of their top line flash units for an out of state wedding.....I wanted a Vivatar 285 and this camera dealer sold me this Promaster unit for a touch less than the Vivatar (at list price)...said it would OUT DO the 285 and it was even ttl with my nikon to boot......got lucky and I decided to shoot manual as if it were a 285...those pics were great...but the auto ttl ones....over / under exposed randomly.....lenses might be better...but if that copy is a HUNTER then I would not ttust them.....many good things have been written by individuals about the SIGMAS and TAMRONS ..... great after maket lenses and have been around for many years...and there is also TOKINA.....it just seems to be a matter of which lens you are wanting and also make sure that you can return the lens for different one if the need arises (every one make as bad lens copy ... after all it humans doing da woik....:D).

cmason

Kagan:

I went thru a similar dilema myself. I wanted a longer reach lens especially for sports shots of the kids. I borrowed a friends 100-400 lens, and discovered that while 400mm was really nice, most of my shots were less than 300mm, a good number around 200mm.

While the 2.8 lenses are fantastic, I just am not prepared to spend that kinda money for my hobby...not yet. So I limited my choices to two very highly rated lenses: 70-200 f4/L and the 70-300 IS. They are both priced about the same at around $500.

I tried them both, and while I prefered the reach of the 70-300, the IS wasn't that useful for where I was planning on using it (sports). The 70-200L produced just amazing shots, so that is what I settled on. I do not feel limited however, as the sharpness gives lots of lattitude in cropping. Here are some average samples from a little league game, where I was standing at the fence:








BUT, the thing I didnt consider, but love the most, is how sharp the L lens is for other applications, especially candids and portraits. This is taken at around 90mm, on the soccer field:




I recommend the 70-200 f4 L. Best Bargain L lens ever, and if you need the reach, add the 1.4TC. I never wish for the 2.8.

wmstumme

Here's some heresy--I like the Sigma Bigma (50-500). I like the reach. I just got a 30D, and I really like the combination. You do need a monopod--and it is definately not a "walkaround" lens. But for sports, I don't think you can beat the versatility.

This one was shot from the sidelines--and was not cropped...(at least not much-can't remember exactly).

Bendr

cmason wrote:

I recommend the 70-200 f4 L. Best Bargain L lens ever, and if you need the reach, add the 1.4TC. I never wish for the 2.8.

Can you get away with a 1.4TC on the f/4? doesn't it end up taking away to much light for the Auto focus?

cmason

Bendr wrote:

Can you get away with a 1.4TC on the f/4? doesn't it end up taking away to much light for the Auto focus?

Nope, the 1.4 is fully compatible with autofocus on the f/4. The 2.0TC is not however

Kagan

Thanks for all of this input everyone. I would jump on the 4L if it wasnt for wanting it for lower light. I guess I just need a sigma price on the canon 2.8 I used a tripod with that promaster yesterday at T-Ball. I checked when I got home and might have 2 shots that are crisp. I am still willing to blame myself for alot of it, but not all. I have looked at some that some of the others on here have shot of little league or even majors and I dont have one pic even close to that. T-Ballers arent that darn fast hehe. Anyway thank you all very much for your replies. It gives me alot to think about.

Scott_Quier

Kagan wrote:

I checked when I got home and might have 2 shots that are crisp. I am still willing to blame myself for alot of it, but not all. I have looked at some that some of the others on here have shot of little league or even majors and I dont have one pic even close to that.

Here's something else to put into the pot when you're thinking about this. I did a quick search for sources for the above mentioned Promaster 70-330 and found 2 selling this lens for approx $190USD. There's a reason why this lens is selling for so little and it's not the lack of name/branding!

• At that price, you're looking at a lens that probably has not been subjected to much, if any, QC.
• The optics are not going to be coated to eliminate/reduce internal reflections - so image contrast will suffer a bit (or more).
• And, the elements are probably not going to be designed/engineered to control thinks like chromatic abberation (purple fringing at high-contrast boundaries).

These are the sorts of things that make the images you got from the Promaster not compare with images taken with pricier lenses. The jury is still out, in my opinioin, as to whether "you get what you pay for" in photography equipment, but I know for sure that if you don't pay for it, you will not get it.