One more. It's in the glove!!
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/CC_2D00_JV_5F00_HFL201-copy2.jpg.jpg[/img]
One more. It's in the glove!!
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/CC_2D00_JV_5F00_HFL201-copy2.jpg.jpg[/img]
Tom and Jeff
Thanks for the extra input there. See, I'm lucky enough to be recieving a lens as a getting started gift, so I was going to get either one of these lenses, instead of getting the 100-400 as I planned with my Uncle Sam check.....but I'm starting to think, maybe I should go ahead and buy my 100-400 and get the other one as well.
I know I'm just getting started, but I want to get things that will last me a long time, and give me good results, because if I'm stuck with something that's giving me images that I "think" are great quality, I'll be upset when I finally learn that they aren't....and if I learn that, I won't be happy until I get the lens I need.
I saw a saying posted on here the other day...went something like....you only want to cry once when buying equipment, not every time you use it.
What do you guys feel would be the best course of action? Do you think there's going to be an upgraded 100-400mm lens coming out soon? This is like a 5 year old design, correct?
Hahaha! Love that quote about crying when you buy it, not when you use it.
I did read a long thread somewhere about rumors of an upgraded 100-400 here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=247936&page=1
That thread goes all the way back to 2006, and even then some people were convinced that an upgraded 100-400 would be coming out soon. Here's another one on Canon Rumors with recent info:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/01/100-400-f4-56l-is-usm-ii-cr2/
But the posts that make the most sense to me are the ones that point out that the rumored upgrades would make the lens gigantic, heavy and expensive. The current one is reasonably sized, reasonably light and reasonably affordable. So that seems to support getting one now instead of waiting.
On the other hand, it also makes sense to get the 70-200 f/2.8 and try a game or two withoutthe TC. You won't have enough reach for some shots, but some of the plays are going to be near you. (I did relatively well shooting HS football with a 200 prime and full-frame...it does mean more hustling to get into position, though.) And theresolution of your 50D might make cropping an option...while you're getting started, anyway.
Hope I haven't complicated your decision for you!
Jeff
When I was getting started I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 IS first. I shot hockey and basketball with it from the basketball floor and from right behind the glass for hockey. Both from the "corners". Having a f/2.8 zoom was terrific for these shots. For hockey I needed extra reach for the far end so I bought the 1.4X. Now I am at f/4 and that is still OK for hockey as long as I set a custom white balance before I shoot. Later I picked up the 2X more out of curiousity than need. For indoor sports where lighting is usually poor I never use the 2X as f/5.6 is way too slow for fast shutter speeds required to get action stopping shots. However for outside and especially from the bleachers (if you are not allowed on the sideline) say for a football or soccer game you may find it well worth the investment. Later on I wanted more length and decided to go with the 300 f/4 not the 100-400 because I already had up to 200 f/l covered and 400 was at f/5.6 and for hockey which is the sport I shoot the most that would not do. Plus the push/pull thing bothered me. My point here is to start with what you think you need and then work your way into what your photography direction takes you. You can't go wrong with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS IMO. Have fun and happy shooting.
Thanks for all your input guys.
I think at this point, since this is going to be a gift lens, I might go with the 70-200mm 2.8 IS, and get the 1.4x just to make up a little distance. I still want to get both, but for starting out that lens will give me some great shots, and with the 1.4x it won't really kill the lens. Plus, when I do get the 100-400 that extender will get me up to 600mm, even if I will need a nice bright day to use it....even though, for me I don't forsee ever needing a 600mm focal point on a day that's not nice and I'm not out taking pics anyway.
So thanks again for everyone's help, you've made my decision at least an informed one, and I'm sure I'll be seeing you guys around the forum! Cheers!
John
I too just got the 70-200 2.8 IS, have not gotten a chance to strech my "legs" so to speak with it, however intially it is superb. I was just asking the same question about the 1.4x and found and heard from a sports photographer who shoots 300mm prime that you lose some with the 1.4x and too much with the 2.0x
The 1.4x's are going for around $250 new on eBay and I think it would be well worth it for me espcially getting shots of wild life as well as sports. Lucky me... I'm the manager of a bunch of 7 year old baseball stars, so it will mean an additional trip to the park for pics of other kids []
Now I'm in the hunt to figure out do I get the 24-105L or get the 24-70 2.8L, I currently have a Tamron 2.8 17-50 which is a nice lens, but I'm sure as I start shooting L, I'll be spoiled quickly
Well, at the risk of repeating, I'll just say most of the people who advise against this combination don't actually own and use it. I have sold thousands of dollars worth of pictures shot on a 1DMKII or an XTiwith an EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM backed by the 2x doubler. The key is your usage and the light.
My pictures are typically sold as 4x6's or 5x7's. If you look at those images in portrait mode on a 24" monitor, the IQ might not be impressive.If your not blowing up 16x20's, this lens combination will work. If you have ever sold a picture to your local paper you know that your 10-megapixel beauty gets printed at 85lpi. That really makes you glad you splurged for "L" glass.
The second key is light. This combination puts you atF/5.6 wide open.It will not work for football under the lights. This is adaylight only combination that keep you from dragging a 400mm f/2.8 around kids soccer fields for 12-hoursat a time.
Originally Posted by micdon
Yeah, like I was thinking, I'll get the 1.4x because it's not going to kill the pictures, but it will give me the extra I might need.
I'm also thinking about the 24-70mm 2.8 L.....It would be an awesome lens for weddings, and if you had to do an indoor sport like basketball, you could be close enough, and the aperture is big enough to at least let it happen. I know it's not as good as a 50mm 1.4, but...it would still get you by better than a stock lens with an aperture over 4.
All I have to figure out is how to get all the money for the 4-5k worth of lenses I want.
I love my EF24-70MM f/2.8. Like you said, it's my primary wedding lens. If you're on a budget, pick up theEF55-200mm F/4.5/5.6 II USM from Adorama. It's running $189 on the refurbishedside.
My daughter uses this lens for her high school yearbook assignments and has won several photo contests with it installed on an XTi. It's a VERY good lens for this ridiculously low price.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote