telephotos ?? help

[mpphoto12]

i was researching telphotos recently and i want to upgrade from my crappy Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 i just didnt have the money for a while to now i do. i was looking mainly at the common 70-200 2.8 cuz i need thats wide apeture and need something mainly that focuses faster. Also i was looking at the 300f/4 becasue it has IS so would be sharp and fast at the same time. I am shooting sports andjust getting into photojournalism. I also was thinking of getting something like the 300f/4 then getting a 70-200 f/4 after instead of a 2.8. What are your suggestions. thanks

[mark]

for good sports photography you need at least the f2.8 for indoor shots. as for as the is goes sports is an action photo by definition therefor thats why it requires a wider lens in order to stop action with a faster shutter speed... the IS will only help with panning shots.


The 300 F4 with is would only really be usefull if you are posotioned at a particular spot where that is the required focal length and again not great for indoors. If your shots are minly to be outside then the 70-200f4 with is is a tack sharp lens with latest IS of four shutter stops of hand hold ability...... and the 100-400 Is is a grweat choise for outside where the focal lenghts required are changing

[mpphoto12]

Thanks mark i was thinking about the 100-400 als would that be good as well? also wouldnt the 300f/4 be ok inside just with higher isos?

[Colin]

A fixed focal lengthmeans that you need to have subjects stay at a relatively constant distance. If you're far away the content, that's fine, but if they're running at you, it quickly becomes frustrating.


I really liked the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for indoor gymnastics stuff. If it's outdoors, and you need the reach, you might be better off with a 100-400 or someting like that.


I think that you first need to figure out what focal length range you really need. A 300 f/4 might be a great lens for some indoor stuff, if the people aren't moving or you don't mind the noise at higher ISO, though if you just can't get far enough away to keep the people in the frame, it doesn't do you much good :D

[mpphoto12]

thanks that helps what do you use?

[mark]

i use an EF70-700f2.8IS ,EF70-200f4 IS, the 100-400f4.5-5.6IS USM, EF 28-300f3.5-5.6IS USM,EF-S17-55f2.8 Is USM, an EF-S17-85f4-5.6 IS USM and the EF-S10-22f3.5-4.5USM... i like and use all of them the two best being the EF-S17-55 and theEF 70-200f4.0 for IQ and walk about lenses,, the others for specifics needs

[mpphoto12]

omg wow thats alot of money and lenses lol why do you need both f/4s and both 2.8s?? would the is just be good for everything why do you need the non is onses then lol jw

[Colin]

I've considered getting an f/4 version of the 70-200, for the sake of less mass when you don't need the speed. There's just that money thing.


For telephoto use I use the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 400 f/5.6. The 300 f/4 IS looked really attractive, but I figured that between 200-400, I'd just either use the crop camera or crop the image. Having a 300 f/4 IS would be nice, but again, that money thing...


I really like the 180 f/3.5 macro. It's telephoto, though it's main use is for... Macro... It does take some excellent pictures used simply as a 180mm lens, but so would some other lenses that would be faster for the money spent.


I don't know if the 85 f/1.2is considered telephoto, but aside from having to be relatively far away to get the thing to focus (like I can't take a picture of somebody sitting even close to next to me), I REALLY love that lens, particularly for indoor or other low light use.


The 24-105 f/4 may also qualify as getting into telephoto range. I was originally considering the 24-70 f/2.8over the 24-105 f/4 (yeah, again, I'd like both, but money...) However, with the IS included, it actually makes the 24-105 more handholdable in low light. The only thing it can't do over the 24-70 f/2.8 is stop motion and narrow the depth of field. However, if I want to do that, I'm better served with the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, or the 85 f/1.2. If I need to go wider, the 16-35 f/2.8 can handle that.


I sometimes use the 1.4x and 2.0x extenders, but only with the 180 f/3.5 or 400 f/5.6 when I'm simply out of options. With a lens that is just really clean to start with, the results aren't THAT atrocious, and they do get you closer. But, it always makes me wonder what would have been possible with native glass. I originally got the extenders for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but the results were poor, to put it nicely.


On the wish list, aside from an eventual 5D II, is the a 100-400 4.X-5.6 IS, and possibly a 135 f/2.0, and the '60mm' whacky 1x-5x macro look like a lot of fun, but entirely useless when not delving near the microscopic. 300 f/4 IS would be way cool too. But all of that is WAY down the pipeline. Things like a 300 f/2.8 IS, or an 800 f/5.6, are just about in the range of never. Right now what i've got serves what I want to do well enough. When I actually start paying some bills directly with this stuff, I can have that conversation in my head.

[Oren]

i use an EF70-700f2.8IS
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Wow... I guess this is the lens of our dreams. Where did you get it? We all want a copy of this lens too! ... just kidding of course [:P]