What lens do I really need?

AnimalRights

K, I've just about got enough money for my next major lens.....
By now you know I like taken photos of Cricket/Football/birds/animals.

I have a choice of 3 lined up as contenders.

70-200L f2.8 IS
300 f/4 IS (Love the reach but sure it's f/4 just like my 70-200L f/4)
and the outsider
100-400 f4-5.6 IS (worried about the light on this)

Bear in mind I already own the 70-200L F/4 NON-IS version
and the 1.4 Extender.

I love the idea of the 70-200 2.8 IS because it should be easier to capture and freeze more in Sports but am concerned about the reach, if I use the extender I lose a stop etc
This has all being twirling around my head for the last 4 weeks.

City-Exile

There's no choice to make here.
It's the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8
You don't even need IS as you'll be shooting at high shutter speeds, so hand holding shouldn't be a problem.

Reach shouldn't be an issue, if you're clever enough to position yourself in the right places.

Something to remember though, if you're going to have a grey Canon lens, then you'll draw attention to yourself. This may not be desirable, if you want to shoot from the stands.

oshead

Have you considered any Prime lenses. They are generally faster and better IQ.

Dave OS

OnLooker

How much is the 70-200L f2.8 IS setting you back?

The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 would be another option. Borderfox has it and likes it. You can get it from Kea for €1500.

AnimalRights

I like your decisiveness Peadar!
It's personally the one I want too but as always totally respect the views you Ken and Paul have.
I can get it from Scotland for £980 including P+P
You've confused me saying I don't need the IS version, I totally regret not getting the IS version on the f/4 version of the 70-200.
I def would love the money I'd save on the non IS version as I'm having to borrow €500 towards the cost.

Onlooker I't costing €1241 and I wouldn't touch a Sigma with a bargepole.

City-Exile

oshead, the sports primes for Canon start at 300mm f/2.8, which retails for about €5,500 in Ireland.

AR, I have NEVER used IS at a sporting event!
Never, ever, ever!

Paulw

Go buy the Canon 300mm f/2.8

Ok, back to reality, I'd say go for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 (sell your f/4 lens), or consider the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8

Paulw

City-Exile wrote: »

I have NEVER used IS at a sporting event!

I can't say never, but so few times you can count on one hand.

You could use the IS for panning, wildlife or landscapes, but not for sport really. Fast shutter speed negates it.

AnimalRights

City-Exile wrote: »

oshead, the sports primes for Canon start at 300mm f/2.8, which retails for about €5,500 in Ireland.

AR, I have NEVER used IS at a sporting event!
Never, ever, ever!

Can't afford the 300mm 2.8 lol

I regretted not having the IS on the 70-200L f/4 but then again I used that handheld as a walkaround, I def I assume wouldn't be using that beast 2.8L as a walkaround

OnLooker

AnimalRights wrote: »

Onlooker I't costing €1241 and I wouldn't touch a Sigma with a bargepole.

Bad experience??

Talked to a good few lads at sports games & they have used the Sigma 120-300mm before stepping up to the Canon 300mm f2.8

City-Exile

Paulw wrote: »

I can't say never, but so few times you can count on one hand.

Did you see a noticeable difference?

Paulw

City-Exile wrote: »

Did you see a noticeable difference?

Not really. It gives a steady perspective. I've used it for penalty kicks in rugby and such. Just keeps it steady for the kick, without having much movement.

AnimalRights wrote: »

I def I assume wouldn't be using that beast 2.8L as a walkaround

I've used mine for walkaround from time to time. It's not that much heavier than the Canon 24-70mm L lens.

City-Exile

I used Sigma glass before & they're nowhere near as fast as the Canon.
With regard to the weight, I think the 70-200mm f/2.8 is perfect for walking around.

AnimalRights

OnLooker wrote: »

Bad experience??

Talked to a good few lads at sports games & they have used the Sigma 120-300mm before stepping up to the Canon 300mm f2.8

Well only with some other Sigma, a 28-200, I donno, I just feel safer with a Canon.

AnimalRights

City-Exile wrote: »

With regard to the weight, I think the 70-200mm f/2.8 is perfect for walking around.

Is that not more reason to have IS then?
I have noticed I have improved with my non IS f/4 for taking pictures....maybe I was just ****e with it when I 1st bought it.

City-Exile

It's all about preference, but if I was on a tight budget, I'd cut back on the luxury extras.

oshead

You seem to be looking at the supertele end of things. On your budget i'd go for the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM. Optically it is superior to the other two in your list. Bang for buck this is probably one of the best lenses out there.

If reach and speed is your main concern then you can look no further than the 300 f/2.8. Works well with the 1.4 extender too.

Dave OS

City-Exile

AnimalRights wrote: »

I def would love the money I'd save on the non IS version as I'm having to borrow €500 towards the cost.

oshead wrote: »

If reach and speed is your main concern then you can look no further than the 300 f/2.8. Works well with the 1.4 extender too.

He said he had to borrow €500, not €5,000!

Paulw

It took me a good while to get used to using the 300mm f/2.8 lens. Now it just feels right and I'm getting more out of the lens.

Like anything else, the more you use it, the more you get used to it, and hopefully the better your images become.

oshead

Good point Paul. The lenses he has are fine. Why go and spend a €1500, if all you get for it is 1 stop of light. I would save for six months and if needed, borrow the rest of the money.

Dave OS

jackdaw

City-Exile wrote: »

There's no choice to make here.
It's the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8
You don't even need IS as you'll be shooting at high shutter speeds, so hand holding shouldn't be a problem.

Reach shouldn't be an issue, if you're clever enough to position yourself in the right places.

Something to remember though, if you're going to have a grey Canon lens, then you'll draw attention to yourself. This may not be desirable, if you want to shoot from the stands.

+1 for the Canon 70 - 200 2.8 L

fantastic lens ...

opti76

+ 2 for the 2.8 canon.. fantastic lense.

kensutz

Like Peadar and Paul have said already, IS will be more of a luxury to you and rarely used. Get yourself a good monopod to keep your hands steady and it will then reduce your need for IS.The Canon 70-200 is an ideal lens as it's quick at focusing which you will need for sports and it's a purchase you won't regret.

AnimalRights

I pushed the boat out and ordered the 70-200L 2.8 IS version.
Was £960 and after adding on P+P and OTT bank charges (which also included Bank transfer) It came to a grand total of €1357...still €550 cheaper then Conn's.
Bit nervous hoping everything goes smoothly, exchanged e-mails with the guy from Scotland (Kerso) and he said not to worry as it might not get there til tomorrow etc.

Will prob have the 70-200L f/4 non IS version up for sale soon, fingers crossed.

oshead

Congrats. Cant wait to see the pics..

Dave OS

Borderfox

Get the IS, I use it a lot in different jobs. It weather seals the lens too so you only have to worry about the body. Handholding with IS you can go down to 1/60th easily

oshead

Borderfox wrote: »

Get the IS, I use it a lot in different jobs. It weather seals the lens too so you only have to worry about the body.

I think he got it already. With IS.....

Borderfox

I just had a look at page one..

AnimalRights

Page 2 is where it's at!
Seriously, I so regretted not getting IS with the 70-200L f/4 version.
I am a big Sports fan and can also see myself branching out into other Sports besides Footy and Cricket to improve my technique (praccy etc)...not saying I'll ever be Pro standard but I am a very keen amateur all the same.

Paulw

AnimalRights wrote: »

I am a big Sports fan and can also see myself branching out into other Sports besides Footy and Cricket to improve my technique (praccy etc)...not saying I'll ever be Pro standard but I am a very keen amateur all the same.

Plenty of us in that catagory. Very keen amateurs. Or even professional amateurs. :rolleyes:

The best part is trying out the lens and then practice, practice, practice.

ttcomet

To put your mind a bit at ease, I have just brought of Ian (Kerso) outside of ebay and so far all has gone fine. My macro lens arrived the other day and I am just waiting on him to send my flash at the end of the week.
Dont forget to send off for your canon rebate

AnimalRights

ttcomet wrote: »

To put your mind a bit at ease, I have just brought of Ian (Kerso) outside of ebay and so far all has gone fine. My macro lens arrived the other day and I am just waiting on him to send my flash at the end of the week.
Dont forget to send off for your canon rebate

I really appreciate that reply m8.

What Macro lens did you go for? and was it a Macro ring lite type flash?
I have the Canon 100mm 2.8.....I use it more for portraits now lol

ttcomet

I went for the 100mm 2.8 the same as yourself. I am finding the dof bloody hard to deal with.
This things face is 2 cm's long and I cant get it all in focus at 1:1 and 2.8.




I went for the MT-24 ex. I am going to need all the light I can get to get a decnt aperature.

Good luck with your new lens

Ballyman

City-Exile wrote: »

Something to remember though, if you're going to have a grey Canon lens, then you'll draw attention to yourself. This may not be desirable, if you want to shoot from the stands.

What exactly do you mean by this?

AnimalRights

Chavs can spot a white/grey lens easier than a black lens.
Or if you want to sneak some photos the white/grey is more of a giveaway
Or will just wait til PaulW comes back with his view.

Saggitarius

ttcomet wrote: »

I went for the 100mm 2.8 the same as yourself. I am finding the dof bloody hard to deal with.
This things face is 2 cm's long and I cant get it all in focus at 1:1 and 2.8.

If I recognise right your problem is physically impossible: @2.8 aperture bigger depth of field. The depth of field is close connection with aperture also @2.8 a couple of mm and smaller maybe @8 or @11 it be enough for you. If you have for example a Canon 20-30 or 40D you can find this push button and check before take the pic.
Here we go in pictures that I did for example only. The aperture values are next in order-> 1st:4.5 2nd:9 3rd:32