|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
9 Nov 2004, 19:59 (Ref:1148917) | #1 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
Ideal Canon telephoto lense
What recomendations do you guys have for a canon telephoto lense? Will be used with an EOS 20D.
Thanks in advance! Last edited by Allen Mead; 9 Nov 2004 at 20:06. |
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
9 Nov 2004, 20:58 (Ref:1148986) | #2 | ||
Take That Fan
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,113
|
I'm a 10D owner and I have a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabiliser USM and I am very happy with it, you can get them for about £400.
|
||
__________________
There is only one way of life and thats your own ! ! ! |
9 Nov 2004, 21:39 (Ref:1149020) | #3 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
Cheers rdjones!
|
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
9 Nov 2004, 21:53 (Ref:1149034) | #4 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
What are these like for catching cars on the move?
|
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
10 Nov 2004, 00:56 (Ref:1149139) | #5 | |
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 178
|
Thats a very open ended question. What kind of money do you have or want to spend?
If you want one of the best lenses out there, you should be looking at the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens, but that will run you about $1600 US. A great value lens is the 70-200 f/4L lens, its about $600 US and is super sharp if you dont need the extra speed or IS of the f/2.8. Also, do you need a short zoom or long one? Let us know what you are looking for and what you can spend and we'll be able to help you out more. |
|
|
10 Nov 2004, 06:34 (Ref:1149219) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,074
|
As suggested the 70-200 F2.8 is a great lens but also the 100-400L IS canon lens is very good and if your at places like Silverstone you need it.
As for catching cars on the move thats all down to practice |
||
|
10 Nov 2004, 22:13 (Ref:1149866) | #7 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
This is a difficlut one as I don't really understand the 'f' values on the lenses.
I guess it would need to be on similar lines as my existing one which is a 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III EF lens. Would definately need to be a quick focusing one. Budget wise, I have about £500-600. Cheers. |
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
10 Nov 2004, 22:20 (Ref:1149876) | #8 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 25
|
The "f value" I think you're referring to is the maximum aperture of a lens, where smaller is better. The Canon 70-200 f/4, for example, lets in half as much light when the aperture disc is fully open as the 70-200 f/2.8. The amount of light is halved with each factor of sqrt(2)=1.41.
One exhaustive explanation is at http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a lens with a greater maximum aperture (corresponding to a numerically smaller f/stop) will tend to focus faster; it should be noted that most SLR lenses still focus quickly, however. That and I don't own an SLR so I'm not basing this on experience, only theory. |
||
__________________
Patrick O'Leary |
11 Nov 2004, 21:37 (Ref:1150927) | #9 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
Thanks for all the help guys, much appreciated!!!
That is a really really good site, thanks pao. |
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
11 Nov 2004, 22:18 (Ref:1150962) | #10 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 656
|
I'd really go for the 70-200 L as suggested by vwpilot.
The optics are as sharp as the (higher priced) f2.8 version and it's built to last a long time. Much more solid than the 75-300 IS. Also, on the 20D, it'll look like a 110-320mm lens, given the crop factor on the smaller sensor, which is plenty long enough. |
|
|
17 Nov 2004, 21:08 (Ref:1156376) | #11 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
|
Hey, what about the Sigma EX 70-200 HSM? Anyone use one of these? Half the price of a Canon L
|
||
|
17 Nov 2004, 21:40 (Ref:1156429) | #12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,074
|
I did look at the sigma 70-200mm F2.8 when I went to the shop I looked at both the sigma and the canon. When I was looking at them the sigma broke, this was brand new out the box worked for 2 mins then didnt focus, after that I lost all confidence in sigma and when for the canon which has been great been through freezing conditions and heavy rain. And the final point is that the sigma as well as being half the price is three times the weight, something to think about if your carring it a lot.
Last edited by brickkicker; 17 Nov 2004 at 21:45. |
||
|
18 Nov 2004, 08:40 (Ref:1156785) | #13 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
|
Yeah, I've had bad experiences with Sigma "consumer" lenses failing on me but I'm borrowing a friends Sigma 70-200 f2.8 at the moment, and I must say it seems to be quite a good performer and quick to focus (and this is a 4 year old lens) The only thing that niggles me is that the zoom ring zooms the wrong way! (Nikon style??).
No IS on this one though. Do you guys find IS useful at the track or is it usually switched off when you're panning? |
||
|
18 Nov 2004, 22:07 (Ref:1157480) | #14 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,074
|
I leave the IS switched on as it lets you get drop the shutter speed a lower giving a better blur but not getting any camera shake.
|
||
|
18 Nov 2004, 22:08 (Ref:1157481) | #15 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 656
|
Remember Colin that the 70-200 f4 doesn't have IS, only the f2.8 one at three times the cost.
The 75-300 doesn't have the panning specific IS either, so you're best going for a good sharp lens and practicing your panning with the advantage of digital. The 70-200 f4 is solidly built but light, in fact i really want one for when carrying the 2.8 version is just too much. Have a go at one, and i think you'll be impressed. cheers, Gav |
|
|
15 Dec 2004, 21:58 (Ref:1180589) | #16 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 441
|
Why not plump for Sigma instead of Cannon?
I have a Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 lens. They are going for £600 in the shops, or at least that what it said in Jessops (store not the web). http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/50_500_ex.htm If you need to see what it can do visit my homepage and make a beeline for the hi res pics (click on the animated gif). |
||
|
18 Nov 2004, 22:27 (Ref:1157492) | #17 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
gi_gav, I noticed this when looking on Canon's website, i was not amused! But then I've been using a lens without it anyway so not lost anything. That f2.8 is real expensive tho isn't it.
|
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
17 Dec 2004, 22:28 (Ref:1182192) | #18 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 441
|
Yeah... that bascially looks like a step down from the 50-500mm f4-6.3.
Good lens. |
||
|
19 Nov 2004, 09:27 (Ref:1157829) | #19 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 656
|
expensive but absolutely worth it if you need a lens for more than casual snapping.
The fact that (as mentioned in the past) mine fell onto concrete from 3 feet and was still taking pin sharp photos in a thunderstorm within the day speaks volumes for the quality of these lenses. But yes, it is a shame that the IS only features on the f2.8 lens and similarly priced 300mm f4 and 100-400 f4-5.6, meaning that there isn't yet a suitable IS lens for a motorsport enthusiast without the deepest of pockets! |
|
|
19 Nov 2004, 11:04 (Ref:1157917) | #20 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
|
Thanks Gav. Will be borrowing a 70-200 f4 for the weekend from a friend of mine so I can compare with the Sigma f2.8 (also borrowed from a friend. Aren't I lucky to have friends who can afford such exotic glass )
|
||
|
28 Nov 2004, 13:17 (Ref:1166179) | #21 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
Popped in Dixons (yeah I know) on friday night and they had instore both 70-200mm USM which is pretty big and the Image stabilising one - it's HUGE!! so's it's price
|
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
28 Nov 2004, 21:03 (Ref:1166534) | #22 | ||
Take That Fan
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,113
|
I have been looking at lens again today not that I want a new one or anything. Anyway I came across the Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM, has anyone got one or know if they are any good?
|
||
__________________
There is only one way of life and thats your own ! ! ! |
29 Nov 2004, 11:17 (Ref:1166940) | #23 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 656
|
One very special lens there rdjones...
Anything with Canon's 'L' tag generally is - sharp optics, weather sealed and exceptionally well built. The 35-350 is a pretty extreme zoom range but the lens still has a good reputation from what I know. |
|
|
29 Nov 2004, 19:40 (Ref:1167334) | #24 | ||
Take That Fan
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,113
|
Better start saving then. I think I will stick with my EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabiliser USM for the time being. Might have it by Le Mans 2006.
|
||
__________________
There is only one way of life and thats your own ! ! ! |
30 Nov 2004, 23:36 (Ref:1168455) | #25 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,152
|
Brikkicker, is that IS actually working? Iv'e got a steady hand and can honestly say I havn't nticed any differenc in my pics with either on or off...is it just a selling gimick or does it actually work? Also, is that 100-400 as good as the 70-300 (Canon)??
|
||
__________________
Motorsport and aviation photography |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Waterproof camera/lense covers | dazbaz_99 | Motorsport Art & Photography | 11 | 27 Mar 2006 17:50 |
Canon Lenses for Canon 350d? | Michael Wyles | Motorsport Art & Photography | 14 | 18 Jul 2005 17:50 |
ideal f1 line up | garagegirl | Formula One | 55 | 10 Jun 2003 14:20 |
Ideal F1 schedule | zootv | Formula One | 44 | 24 Oct 2002 02:07 |