Buying my first L lens- Not an easy choice

[Kenny]

Hi everyone new to the site and a relative newb to photography in general. I have been drawn into it more and more in recent years and am looking to get an all purpose L for indoor sporting events, kids school sports etc.


Well after reading all of the posts on here and many other sites I think I may just buy the 300mm/2.8 L. When I started looking I thought dam no way Im paying that much for a lens but after much carefull thought It would appear the following seems to be true, please let me know if you see any serious ommisions


great for indoor / outdoor sporting events


heavy but not to heavy to carry around to get the most use out of it.


Works great by itself or with the 1.2 or 2x tele giving me more reach when needed.


By purchasing this I will spend more money up front but will save in the long run by not moving upone lens at a time and them having to drop a ton more to getto a 500mm.


The 300/2.8 sems to be a great lens that can be used for a ton of situations were as the rest of my choices lead me to bigger and bigger investments as distance increases.Sports and and action are the real areas of interest and the only other choice seems to be the 400/2.8 but I lean away from this because of the size and additional price increase. I did consider it for a while until I saw a great video on youtube from a lens rental company showing the lenses mounted on the camera, a must see if you have never seen these lens in person. The 400/2.8 is really a beast wayto big for me to use and walk around with.


So price aside is their a reason to consider going a different route I have bee using a very old 70-300 first generation lens on my 20D and last year bought a 7D and need to invest in an L lens that will see the most use.


Would love to hear any negatives to going this route for a beginer to theL lenses

[Chuck Lee]

an all purpose L for indoor sporting events


That does not describe the 300 f2.8L.


That does describe the 70-200 f2.8L USM


If you can afford the 300 f2.8 you might as well get the IS version of the 70-200.

[neuroanatomist]

an all purpose L for indoor sporting events


That does not describe the 300 f2.8L.


That does describe the 70-200 f2.8L USM


If you can afford the 300 f2.8 you might as well get the IS version of the 70-200.






Indoor sporting events tend to be very poorly lit, relatively speaking. Although f/2.8 is fast for a zoom, that's about the slowest usable aperture for many indoor venues. Furthermore, 300mm on a 7D is going to be pretty long for most indoor sports, unless you're shooting basketball from the top of the bleacher seats.


If indoor sports is your primary need, and you have the $ for the 300mm f/2.8L IS, I'd consider a couple of shorter fast primes - the EF 200mm f/2L IS if you can stretch your budget to that point, or the EF 135mm f/2L plus the EF 85mm f/1.8. You can actually get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, the 135mm f/2L and the 85mm f/1.8, all for less than the cost of the 300mm f/2.8L.

[GNUlars]

Hi! The 300 seems a bit long, especially for the 7D. I have the 5D and the 70-200/2.8 IS, excellent for shooting indoor sports. I highly recommend it, fast focusing, very sharp and the stabilisation is brilliant.

[Kenny]

Im glad I asked I thought about the IS 70-200 but had noticed that a lot of people were talking about the 300mm f2.8 instead so I thought it would be a better choice.


So I would be better of going with the 70-200 for say indoor gymnastics events or large indoor venues, I was worried about getting in close.


Thanks for the help

[barba]

Definitely rent it and take it to the gym before dropping that kind of money.

[rlriii13]

Definitely rent it and take it to the gym before dropping that kind of money.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





+1. Great advice. Rent them both on different days and see.

[rlriii13]

_

[Kenny]

Thats what Im going to do thank you for some reason I didnt even think abot it.

[Brendan7]

I have been drawn into it more and more in recent years and am looking to get an all purpose L for indoor sporting events, kids school sports etc.


The only "all purpose" sports lens is really the 70-200 f/2.8. It's usable for basketball games, but prepare to bump ISO to 1600. That's a great all around lens that'll have uses beyond sports, i.e portraits. So that's one option.


The option you mentioned is the 300 f/2.8, which doesn't make very much sense. Granted, for outdoor sports like football and soccer it'll be helpful. But with your 1.6x crop body you won't need all 300mm outdoors, so the 70-200 would make just as much sense. Not only that, but it'd be too long indoors, so the 70-200 is better both outside and inside for you.


The third option that I think would fit you best is to buy the 135mm f/2 lens for indoors, and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS for general purpose. That'll cost you under $3000, so you'll have saved $1200 AND have more versatility! You could also spend that $1200 toward a longer lens such as the 300 f/4 or 100-400.


I don't suggest either the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 for you because not only are they expensive, they're too long on your body and not very versatile. The 300 f/2.8 is really a 480 f/4.5 on your body, which is often too long for outdoor sports, let alone indoor. The 400 f/2.8 will be completely unusable indoors and really break the bank at $8000. The 200 f/2 is an OK option IMO but outdoors you won't need an f/2 aperture and on your crop body the 135 f/2 could do the same thing indoors &ndash; on your crop body it'd be equivalent to 216mm.


So, I suggest option #3 ~ buy a 70-200 and 135 f/2 and have cash left to buy something else.


Just my 2&cent;.


brendan

[Atomhot]

Definitely rent it and take it to the gym before dropping that kind of money.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





+1 on renting&hellip;


300 &fnof;2.8 will be long ( ~480 ) for you on a 7D; if you're going to pull the trigger on this one, probably a good idea to hedge your bet and rent a FF body so the experience isn't completely lost.

[Kenny]

[8-)]The more I learn the more I realize how little I know about all of this.


Of course the good news is all of your recomendations are saving me some money so thats not a bad thing, thanks again

[calmars]

bburns, the f/2.8 doesn't turn into a f/4.5 just because it's mounted on a 7D. Only with extenders. However I agree with everything else you and everyone have said. The 70-200 is definitely the way to go.

[Brendan7]

bburns, the f/2.8 doesn't turn into a f/4.5 just because it's mounted on a 7D. Only with extenders. However I agree with everything else you and everyone have said. The 70-200 is definitely the way to go.






yes, it does. Not only does a crop body multiply focal length by 1.6x, it does the same to effective aperture. I learned that in this thread:


http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/2861/22988.aspx#22988


About halfway into it it's explained.


brendan

[neuroanatomist]

bburns, the f/2.8 doesn't turn into a f/4.5 just because it's mounted on a 7D. Only with extenders. However I agree with everything else you and everyone have said. The 70-200 is definitely the way to go.






yes, it does. Not only does a crop body multiply focal length by 1.6x, it does the same to effective aperture. I learned that in this thread:


http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/2861/22988.aspx#22988


About halfway into it it's explained.


brendan






In terms of depth of field, yes - for an identically-framed subject, because to get that framing, you must be further away. Not in terms of light-gathering ability - the sensor does not physically affect the lens, obviously, although a crop sensor only 'sees' a portion of the image circle projected by an EF lens.

[Brendan7]

According to Daniel the Great (Daniel Browning, duh!) f/4 on FF is brighter than f/4 on 1.6. You need a slower shutter speed on a 1.6 to get the same brightness. Daniel, correct me if I'm wrong [:P]


woops...I just hijacked another thread.

[barba]

I do not believe this to be true. I have not noticed such a radical change in exposure values going from 35mm to a crop sensor.

[neuroanatomist]

f/4 is f/4. Period. A lens set to f/4 will let in a fixed amount of light, whether that lens is attached to a 1D4, a 5D2, a 7D, a T1i, or an old Elan film camera. The subsequent comments in that thread are best summed up by Daniel's statement, "Anyway, that doesn't take away from the importance of understanding what happens when the performance per area is the same and you vary the area." Key point there is we had moved on to a discussion of sensor characteristics. What comes out of the back of the lens is totally unaffected by that. To illustrate that point, you can compare any two sensors of the same size but different properties (e.g. 7D vs. 50D/T1i). Performance and light-gathering ability differ, independent of the lens.


There's no easy calculator illustrate this with amount of light, but there is with depth of field. Try the following experiment - go to the DoF calculator atDOFMaster ("http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html). With the default settings on the page (50D et al. 1.6x crop body, 55mm, f/16, 10 feet from subject), you'll see a DoF of 6.61 ft. Change just the pop-up for the body to a 5D MkII, a full frame body. Now, all else being equal, the DoF is now 12.3 ft. What?!?!? Didn't we all agree you multiply the aperture by 1.6 for a crop, meaning the DoF will be thinner on FF? Why does changing the sensor from crop to FF make the DoF wider? Because of that clause about 'same framing' that I mentioned. Because of the crop factor, you are closer to the subject for a given subject framing on a FF body. With the DoF calculator, 5D MkII, 55mm, f/16, 6.25 feet from subject = 4.02 ft DoF; a ~1.6x aperture or f/25 gives a 7.44 ft DoF (the actual 1.6x would be f/25.6, but that's not an option). 6.25 ft FF framing = 10 ft framing on a 1.6x body. Settings of50D body, 55mm, f/16, 10 feet from subject gives 6.61 ft DoF, which is what f/25.6 on a FF would yield. So, for the same framing, same lens settings as above, a crop body gives a 6.61 ft. DoF, whereas a FF body gives a thinner DoF of 4.02 ft.


So, the bottom line is that a sensor does not and cannot affect the lens properties. f/4 is f/4. f/4 on a particular FF body may be 'brighter' than f/4 on a particular crop body, but then again, f/4 on a new FF body may be 'brighter' than f/4 on an old FF body. The light projected by the lens is the same, but how the sensor detects the light depends on the sensor.


And if that's not an egregious threadjack, I've never seen one... [:P]

[Atomhot]

neuroanatomist is correct &ndash; the incident light per square centimeter @ the image plane is identical regardless of sensor type used.


Collar mount a 70-200 &fnof;2.8 IS on a sturdy tripod ~ 25 feet from a quantitative test subject ( i.e. ruler @ 60&deg; ). Now take following three test shots using the same shutter speed, aperture, and iso&hellip;


1. ~200mm on a 5D ( should have a ~0.8 ft * 2 range on your ruler)


2. ~153mm ( 200 / 1.3 ) on a 1D ( ~1.0 * 2 )


3. ~125mm ( 200 / 1.6 ) on a 7D ( ~1.3 ft * 2 )


human and camera induced variability aside, the result should be nearly identical framing and exposure across all three shots with significant differences in subject DOF, Bokeh.

[Brendan7]

I stand corrected...I never really caught on to all the technical aspects of photography [:P]


OK, thread has now been un-hijacked [^]

[Kenny]

You guys scare me

[elmo_2006]

A couple of months ago, I was at an indoor hockey game watching and taking photos of my bosses kids playing. Along came a gentleman with the 300/2.8 mounted on a 1D Mark xx (can't recall) which in turn mounted to monopod and the conversation started:


me: Wow, great rig, love the lens


him: Thanks, she sure is.


me: You know, that's one of my dream lenses.


him: An awesome lens and great for those tight shots


me: Not sure if it deserves to be on my little Xsi


him: Why not, but you will be snapping up photos of this game from the parking lot


me: LOL


him: Besides, unless you plan on making money (as he is an actual photographer), this lens deserves to be utilized on a FF or an APS-H camera, your choice of the 70-200 2.8 is a good choice.........


Suffice to say, these guys in these forums are correct and do know what they are saying, stick with the mentioned lenses and you won't be disappointed. But hey, if you've got the dough, the sky's the limit!

[Kenny]

The money I save will go to some books I think those big lens are for the pros , sure I could buy it but thats not a reason im more interested in learning more and buying what I need.


This is a great forum for a beginer


Thanks again

[RonG]

If you are going to stay with a 1.6 crop factor then buy a Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lens and a canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM lens. this combo will bring you close to or a little over 3 grand. If you plan on upgrading to APS-H or FF then get the canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM lens instead of the 17-55mm. This Two lens combo will cover everything you will need even for football and soccer. Use the remaining 1300 dollars from the price of the 300 f2.8 to buy a good image software like lightroom or aperture, Noise Ninja for noise reduction and genuine fractals to create any size enlargement you want. You might even have enough left over to get a nice 50mm f1.4 lens to boot. And IMHO you will never regret spending more money on canon lenses vs. less expensive 3rd party (caveat, I love my sigma 50mm f1.4). Good Luck

[Daniel Browning]

The 300 f/2.8 is really a 480 f/4.5 on your body

You've got a good point to make, but I think there is a better way to phrase it. For example:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]"The 300mm f/2.8 your body is really equivalent to 480 f/4.5 on full frame."


I think the difference is important. 300mm f/2.8 is always 300mm f/2.8, no matter what body you put it on. But when you compare angle of view, the 300mm on the 7D is equivalent to 480mm on the 5D2. And when you compare noise, 300mm f/2.8 on the 7D is equivalent to 480mm f/4.5 on the 5D2.


f/4 on FF is brighter than f/4 on 1.6. You need a slower shutter speed on a 1.6 to get the same brightness.

If you replaced brightness with noise, I would agree with that statement. Personally, I consider noise to be a much more important factor than brightness. (Brightness just requires a slight adjustment in the raw converter -- if that.)

[Atomhot]

f/4 on FF is brighter than f/4 on 1.6. You need a slower shutter speed on a 1.6 to get the same brightness.

If you replaced brightness with noise, I would agree with that statement. Personally, I consider noise to be a much more important factor than brightness. (Brightness just requires a slight adjustment in the raw converter -- if that.)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





hmm&hellip; The noise on a FF ( 5Dmkii ) @ &fnof;4 should be less than the noise on a 1.6 ( 7D ) @ &fnof;4 for the same lens, shutter, aperture et al.

[Kenny]

Ok time to dumb this thread down a little. I have been reading a lot of previous posts and i think some basic selections are starting to make sense. I must say some of the pictures you guys have posted just amaze me. Once you begin to shoot outside and at distance how do you know what is the correct lens or is it just a matter of learning as you gain more experience and your skills improve. I am just overwhelmed when I begin to think about the proper lens for every different subject. The only time I really cant take pictures is at an airshow I go to once a year the subjects are just to far away even on the ground. I know I cant afford anything to get these shots but I have been try to figure out how do you select the bestlens for Short/intermediate /long distance indoor vs outdoor. My guess is there is no simple answer because of all the variables but what questions do you ask yourself as you think about your subject and how you will prepare.

[Brendan7]

The money I save will go to some books I think those big lens are for the pros , sure I could buy it but thats not a reason im more interested in learning more and buying what I need.


This is a great forum for a beginer


Thanks again






You seem to have a very good idea of what to do: learn more and buy what you need. So many photographers don't learn and buy what they would never need. Good Luck with your purchase, whatever it may be. Again, I suggest the 70-200 f/2.8 and 135 f/2. But I'm sure whatever you choose will suit you just fine.


brendan

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I don't shoot sport, so I can't comment, but I recently read this article on Adorama Learning Center. I think it's somewhat helpful for you, it's about shooting basketball.


http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/How-to-photograph-basketball-games ("http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/How-to-photograph-basketball-games)

[Kenny]

Im going to get the 70-200 as everyone recomended its suits my all around needs the best until I refine what my primary interests are. It seems to be the one lens everyone uses for several different applications. I was happy with point and shoot until I saw the images here,the color and clarity.... didnt know it was possible.

[Daniel Browning]

hmm&hellip; The noise on a FF ( 5Dmkii ) @ &fnof;4 should be less than the noise on a 1.6 ( 7D ) @ &fnof;4 for the same lens, shutter, aperture et al.


Yes, that's what I intended to say; sorry if I wasn't clear. In other words, f/4 on FF has less noise than f/4 on 1.6X, and f/4.5 on FF has the same noise as f/2.8 on 1.6X (if the performance per area is the same, as in the case of the 7D and 5D2).