Suggestions - Saxperience

mattchewone · 20th March 2009, 16:37

Right now i am going to start looking into what lenses i could get. As i am now not going to upgrade body.

I am not to sure on what lenses are good/bad what sort i should go for so i would love for some help here guys.

I would like to replace the kit lens and my sigma 70-300mm.

I am thinking about the 70-200L f/4 NON IS as the sigma replacement although it is a far amount shorter but it will be a million times quicker AF and sharper. (im also thinking this could be good for portraiture)

Then i would like something preferably that is fairly wide and will have a reasonable good zoom on it. I know Don suggested a Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8, preferable i'd like something that has that little more zoom but if there isnt anything then thats fine ill just have to keep changing lenses lol.

Thanks in Advance

Matt

Ryan^p · 20th March 2009, 16:40

decent glass you eont get a massive range from so changing lenses is a must.

Unless you want something like the sigma 50-500 lol

mattchewone · 20th March 2009, 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

decent glass you eont get a massive range from so changing lenses is a must.

Unless you want something like the sigma 50-500 lol

Not really lol.

So the 70-200 is probably something i would get as that would be good for when i go to the track. and i could use it as a portrait lens also, couldnt i?

How much better is the IS version? As i dont go to tracks all the time but when i do i like to have sharp images, also i would like to start taking some nice moving car shots of mates cars (when it warms up a bit) Would i benefit from having the IS or will i get as good results from the non IS version?

Then i just need to find a replacement for shit kit lens!

Barry123 · 20th March 2009, 17:08

Defo get the 70-200 L
the IS is a hint sharper but I doubt most people will notice, if you're doing portraiture using flash then the IS is of course pointless anyway.
Long range portraiture - yes, yes, yes (if you've got the space and you're only after headshots)

If you're wanting it as a straight replacement for the 70-300 then I'd get the kenko 1.4x DG PRO 300 tele-extender for it too mate

That'll make the 70-200 F/4 a 98-280 F/5.6
so nearly 300mm.... but a fuck load sharper.
marvel at it's sharpness even wide open.

mattchewone · 20th March 2009, 17:17

Wont there be a fair bit of softness drop from using an extender?

I am considering putting up boarding in me loft and setting up my studio lights and just doing a few mates and stuff. I would hope that the 70-200mm would be fine for that as there would be lots of space. Could always use the 50mm if i was to do full body and couples.

Do you think the NON IS version would still be good for occasional motorsport and cars etc?

jaybiss · 20th March 2009, 17:22

you're pretty much in the same boat as me matt but i've just bought my 24-70mm

my choice is canon 70-200mm f4 or sigma 70-200 f2.8

Barry123 · 20th March 2009, 17:22

mate... that pic above WAS off a 70-200 and an extender. I've done countless test shots and I can't see a difference in sharpness even at 100x crop.

The kenko is the best you can get for the 1.4x

there is softness with a 2x that's fo sure

Ryan^p · 20th March 2009, 17:24

1.4 works well (hence I need to order one)

2x is soft (hence me loosing it somewhere lol)

mattchewone · 20th March 2009, 17:25

Will it make much difference that yours is the IS version? Or will the NON IS be pretty much the same with the 1.4 teleconvertor quality wise?

Is this the right one Sayer - http://www.onestop-digital.com/catal...roducts_id=107

Sayer will you be attending any CS meets? April 5th? Or the RR day?

Jay - Whats the lens like mate? Any test shots? Did you get the Sigma 2.8 or the canon L one matey?

Barry123 · 20th March 2009, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

Will it make much difference that yours is the IS version? Or will the NON IS be pretty much the same with the 1.4 teleconvertor quality wise?

Sayer will you be attending any CS meets? April 5th? Or the RR day?

Jay - Whats the lens like mate? Any test shots?

The difference between the IS and NON IS is insignificant really. If you've got the sharpest zoom lens canon do and you put on the best 1.4x teleconverter available, you're going to be a happy chappy.

Meets...? probably not.

lol @ jay :d

mattchewone · 20th March 2009, 17:29

What about moving objects? Will the NON IS still be very good?

Sorry to keep asking, just want to make sure that i get the best one i can and it be awesome quality and sharpness!

jaybiss · 20th March 2009, 17:29

i've not ordered any 70-200 yet

still waiting delivery on the 24-70 ffs

mattchewone · 20th March 2009, 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaybiss

i've not ordered any 70-200 yet

still waiting delivery on the 24-70 ffs

Sorry i meant whats the 24-70 like lol but you having got it yet lol.

Which one Sigma or Canon?

Barry123 · 20th March 2009, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattchewone

What about moving objects? Will the NON IS still be very good?

Sorry to keep asking, just want to make sure that i get the best one i can and it be awesome quality and sharpness!

I really don't rate the IS with moving images... even if you lock it to a single plane of stablisation.

With non moving images and low light IS fucking rocks.

for instance 200mm @ 1/5th is possible and you get sharp images.

but otherwise. you're paying double the price of the 70-200 f4L just for the IS.

I'd never swap my IS for a NON IS, but then again I knew what dosh I had to spend. So decided not to the get f/2.8 IS (£500 mark up on the F/4 IS), get the F/4L IS get the 85L as well.

Ryan^p · 20th March 2009, 17:35

IS doesnt really mean anything for sports imo as half the time the shutter speeds are so high you dont need it.

the 70-200 F4 weighs naff all aswell.

mattchewone · 20th March 2009, 17:42

Okey that sorts that out then. I think ill be getting the NON IS, as i doubt very much ill be doing very much hand help low light shooting.

If i did do any low light i'd be using a tripod or flash.

Any recommendations on shorter ranges to replace kit lens?