DSLRUsers.com

Hi guys
It is the typical question.
Which lense to by.

What do I want to do with it?
Well everything of course.
A bit of bird photos
a bit of soccer photos
A bit of motor sport
A bit of walking around and taking shots.
Ie I am general generic happy snapper that does anything.

The three choices in Canon L's are
100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS USM price about $2k
70-200 f2.8 IS USM price about $2.5k
28-300 f3.5-5.6L IS USM price about $3k

or
Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 APO EX DG HSM Lens 50-500 f/4-6.3 about $1.3k
Tamron 200-500mm price about $1k

Current gear, Canon 40d, 17-85 f4-5.6, 100mm f2.8 macro (great lenss) plus bits

Do I have money - no.
Do I tend to buy quality - yes
Am I profesional photographer - no
Am I a really good photographer - no, no, no(thats why I want L series, to make me better!?)

So if you have some thoughts and inputs it would be greatly appreciated.

Regards
Waz

Choice of a few more than that too Waz.

You also have the Canon 70-200 f/4 and f/4 IS plus f/2.8 non-IS. Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, 80-400OS, 100-300 f/4 or 120-300 f/2.8... sorry, haven't made it much easier for you!

Why not go into a store and try a few, or just head up for one of the meets with fellow photographers and try their gears?? That's the best way to decide...

General rule in photography, there is no 'do-it-all' equipment for a reasonable price yet light... Otherwise I put my order for one of those 8-800mm f/1.4 lens costing $500 and weights only 1.3kg...

i've bought and sold many lenses, but one that sticks would be a 70-200 f2.8.

Nikon have two, both very good, similar/same optics, one has the Vibration reduction (VR, IS in canon land).

dont know if canon have a 70-200 non-IS in an f/2.8. might be a f/4.

you will be very happy with that.

I am in the same boat and will be eagerly reading the posts on this thread. That said some of the links I use to research are

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/canon/PRD_104368_3128crx.aspx

... and then I get more confused!

HTH
Mak

A bit of a pickle Waz and one I completely understand
From your list of wants, there is no one lens that will cover them all at "best of class" quality. The closest in terms of focal length might be the 50-500mm Sigma but then that is prob not a walk around lens and the aperture may be limiting for the type of shots you want.

Based on your current kit, the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS USM price about $2k
70-200 f2.8 IS USM price about $2.5k (with addition of teleconvertors) might be the one to go for =)

cheers,
Ken

I tried the 100-400 and decided that for what I do the 70-200/2.8 IS was the go because f/2.8 is just so useful, with a 1.4x TC that I bought off a mate. Since then I've added a Sigma 2x but relatively rarely use it (I just don't need the length that often). Most of my stuff is documentary in one way or another, and I usually don't have a heap of time to faff while things are happening, but I find the 70-200 on a crop body is the bee's knees for the slightly longer shots and people stuff.

IMO the 28-300 is a full frame lens for people that can't afford to (or don't want to) change lenses. Great for PJ's and people in dusty/wet places, not so great for general use.

For birds and motorsport I'd be looking longer than 200mm, probably longer than 400 if you can afford it. The 100-400 with a 1.4x TC will AF ok in good light (motorsport) but in low light it won't work well if at all (neither will the 170-500 or 200-500 for that matter - f/6 or slower is just not good with a consumer level camera). I'd go for IS at that length - if Sigma ever give us a 200-500 OS I'll possibly buy one to get the extra reach in a fairly small zoom.

With a cheap camera and consumer lenses you're going to be looking at prefocus and careful shooting, you don't have the servo focus and frame rate to track and shoot. But it's definitely doable, just be prepared for a low keeper rate.

for the money the Bigma is fantastic....... all shot with the Bigma....

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/3188300#162369873

yes it is a bit slow but with practise you can hand hold this beast...... my favourite lens for birds

I am still comming to terms with hand held shots at 300mm Waz.
Maybe I am just getting more shakey?
You going to sell the kid to supply your Hobby?

Regards Colin

No this is not an offer to buy him!!!!!

Thanks guys

MCWB
The one decission I have made that IF I were to get a canon 70-200 it would be the 2.8 IS, because I would hate the "but what if" factor, and live with the weight, and more options, thanks, I think.
How is Epping these day, I grew up at Beecroft.

Yi-P
You got ripped off for your "I put my order for one of those 8-800mm f/1.4 lens costing $500 and weights only 1.3kg.."
I order mine of ebay in July for $450, still waiting for it to arrive??

Oz_Beach
Evey one says the 70-200 lense is Brillent, but they also say it is not long enough or not close enough, With some of the things I would have to be putting a 1.4 or 2x converter on (ie a 140-400 f5.6). Is the lense that good to go this way?

Makario
Yes too many choices

Jammy2
Yes, the 100-400 is where i started on this lense crusade. But then the 70-200 f2.8 option keeps pushing in, then the dollars of the Bigma push in (with extra width/reach at slower speed), thus throw in the L28-300 (I really do use the 17 end of my current lense alot, but that deciession is later, much later).

Moz
Thanks for the input. The 100-400 is probably the place I shpuld start and with a 1.4x, but.......

Big pix
The bigma has given you some absolutely fantastic shots. Its reach is a real bonus and going down to the 50 wide, and of course the price. Do you think there is any/much difference to shots taken with say the Canon 100-400?

Colin
SOLD, to man in the blue mountains now with a set, one boy and one girl, congratulations. Oh what, you don't want him, bugger.....
One thing I have noticed is that I am very shakey, always have been, started using a tripod a lot more lately.
What 300 have you got?

Regards
Waz

any long lens, if you are not use to hand holding, will need some sort of support, tripod or mono pod is a good start, I now use a gimbal tripod head that sometimes is just not practical, but if not available, lean on a post, table, or the fork of a tree....... with the new digital sensors it is much easier to up your ISO to be able to shoot at faster shutter speeds stopped down one or 2 stops without noise........ when the retailers get onto this, lens prices will rise....... trust me

wazonthehill2 wrote:Jammy2
Yes, the 100-400 is where i started on this lense crusade. But then the 70-200 f2.8 option keeps pushing in, then the dollars of the Bigma push in (with extra width/reach at slower speed), thus throw in the L28-300 (I really do use the 17 end of my current lense alot, but that deciession is later, much later).

I can see what's happening here.

Get the 70-200 f/2.8 with IS. It's as simple as this: it's an excellent lens - one of the best - and it will not disappoint. In the Nikon realm, it's the recommended approach, with the 1.7 TC as the recommended option for the extra reach.

If you decide upon any other lens - any other lens at all - you will not be satisfied, and you will keep on looking until you get this one. Trust me.

Colin
One thing I have noticed is that I am very shakey, always have been, started using a tripod a lot more lately.
What 300 have you got?

I have noticed a significant difference when using long glass, and the absence of VR/IS. While it won't help you with moving subjects, it is a modern miracle of our time, and is well worth the price of entry. Don't leave home without it!.

gstark wrote:Get the 70-200 f/2.8 with IS. It's as simple as this: it's an excellent lens - one of the best

That's what I decided. It is really, really nice to use. Unfortunately the 24-70 makes a great companion lens and now I have to carry two hulking great chunks'o'glass wherever I go.

The 100-400 does one thing reasonably well - long zoom with IS. The Bigma never really struck me as a good idea just because it lacks IS (and I am not much of a tripod user). But then, I rejected the 120-300(ish) for the same reason. It's slightly sharper than the 70-200+2x TC, but I'd rather have that crispy sharp performance at 70-200/2.8 that the 100-400 just never gets anywhere. The bokeh is just so nice at 200/2.8...

moz wrote:

gstark wrote:Get the 70-200 f/2.8 with IS. It's as simple as this: it's an excellent lens - one of the best

That's what I decided. It is really, really nice to use. Unfortunately the 24-70 makes a great companion lens and now I have to carry two hulking great chunks'o'glass wherever I go.

Have you noticed the current Nikkor line-up?

Pick a body - D300, D3, (D60 <smile> D3x <big smile>) and add three lenses: 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200VR f/2.8 and you have a kit that will cover about 98% of your general photographic needs.

gstark wrote:Have you noticed the current Nikkor line-up?

Pick a body - D300, D3, (D60 <smile> D3x <big smile>) and add three lenses: 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200VR f/2.8 and you have a kit that will cover about 98% of your general photographic needs.

Are you not feeling well Mr Stark? How could you make a lens recommendation without adding the F1.4 85mm Nikkor to the list?. I initially thought that was part of your signature

BullcreekBob wrote:I initially thought that was part of your signature

It is.

But point of order, Mr BullCreek.

I was not making a recommendation. I was merely pointing out a logic pattern (and, dare I say it, a rationalisation) in the current range of Nikkor FX glass.

Well I would suggest the longer lenses for your purposes, like the...

28-300mm, 100-400mm, 70-200mm with a teleconverter

I guess the 70-200 combo is the most versatile since you can get f2.8 if you want to or you can put the teleconverter on and get some more range and lose some stops.