Canon lens upgrades for available light action photography

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Geesaman wrote:
> I've got a 300D w/ kit lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6) and a 75-300 f/4-5.6
> Tamron telephoto. It has served well for my very first non-P&S rig. My
> main subject is horses and riding, indoors or outdoors, and it can easily
> show the limitations of this setup. The big shortcoming of my gear is light
> collection ability and/or noise at higher ISO 400 and 800. Most of my shots
> are at 50-200mm, so of course that gaping hole from 55 to 75 needs to be
> filled. Horses are always in motion, so shutter speed must remain 1/250 or
> faster, and I often shoot with my lenses fully opened up.
> I see three upgrade options:
>
> 1) Save my nickels (or endear the credit card company), and buy fast
> L-series lenses. $2900.
> - Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
> - Canon 24-70 f/2.8L
>
> 2) Go the midrange and get somewhat better glass and speed, and enjoy larger
> zoom range as a side benefit. $1250
> - Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 or Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
> - Sigma 70-200 f/2.8
>
> 3) Try a versatile walkabout zoom and buy a couple affordable primes for
> low-light (when I won't need much zoom range). $700.
> - Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3
> - Canon f/1.8 50mm
> - Canon f/2.0 100mm
>
> Obviously option 1 is 'best', but I think that will remain way out of my
> financial picture, and trying to fit it in now is a bad idea for me. With
> no return on investment it's simply money lost. Option 2 is more affordable
> and offers some fast performance (on paper), but is still not cheap and I
> worry won't perform well at f/2.8, which makes me wonder if I go that far
> I'll regret not getting option 1 in the first place. Option 3 is best for
> avail. light, but b/c I deal with lot of dust and I have only one camera
> body it's shaky. Indoors I'll give up zoom and number of shots if it means
> I'll get acceptable shots where the others lenses would get none.
> I would love any advice I can get. As for each lens, I'll be reading
> the reviews with a grain of salt and would like suggestions about what would
> help me most. What I really need insight on is:
>
> 1) Will any of these options make a minor or major improvement in my indoor
> shooting?
>
> 2) Do the advantages of the L-series zooms at f/2.8 show up using only a
> 300D? Will I ever want the IS if I carry a monopod for 150-200mm shooting?
>
> 3) Should I worry about getting the fastest lens I can afford (ISO 400 at
> f/2.8), or will getting good glass and higher ISO do better? (ISO 800 at
> f/3.5)
>
> 4) Are my wants different from the average users of this equipment, such
> that I should consider it when reading the reviews 'out there'?
>
> Dave
>
>
I shoot softball and some equestrian and have the 300D. After much
research and aginizing, I went with the Sigma 24-60 2.8 and the Sigma
70-200 2.8 with a Sigma TC (2x). Gets the indoors/low light shots but
is a tad soft at 2.8. However, results are tack-sharp at 8.0 at either
end of both lenses. At 200ISO, f2.8 will give me 1/750 midday to 1/125
in twilight. As it gets darker, I up the ISO to get the shots. Indoors
in equestrian events can be more of a challenge due to barn lighting. It
varies and I sometimes end up pushing ISO or speed...with similar
results. Don't know how soft the L galss is wide open but I just
couldn't justify the 30-35% price difference...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsdg83r02r31@news2.newsguy.com...
> I've got a 300D w/ kit lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6) and a 75-300 f/4-5.6
> Tamron telephoto. It has served well for my very first non-P&S rig. My
> main subject is horses and riding, indoors or outdoors, and it can easily
> show the limitations of this setup. The big shortcoming of my gear is
light
> collection ability and/or noise at higher ISO 400 and 800. Most of my
shots
> are at 50-200mm, so of course that gaping hole from 55 to 75 needs to be
> filled. Horses are always in motion, so shutter speed must remain 1/250
or
> faster, and I often shoot with my lenses fully opened up.
> I see three upgrade options:
>
> 1) Save my nickels (or endear the credit card company), and buy fast
> L-series lenses. $2900.
> - Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
> - Canon 24-70 f/2.8L
>
> 2) Go the midrange and get somewhat better glass and speed, and enjoy
larger
> zoom range as a side benefit. $1250
> - Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 or Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
> - Sigma 70-200 f/2.8
>
> 3) Try a versatile walkabout zoom and buy a couple affordable primes for
> low-light (when I won't need much zoom range). $700.
> - Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3
> - Canon f/1.8 50mm
> - Canon f/2.0 100mm
>
> Obviously option 1 is 'best', but I think that will remain way out of
my
> financial picture, and trying to fit it in now is a bad idea for me. With
> no return on investment it's simply money lost. Option 2 is more
affordable
> and offers some fast performance (on paper), but is still not cheap and I
> worry won't perform well at f/2.8, which makes me wonder if I go that far
> I'll regret not getting option 1 in the first place. Option 3 is best for
> avail. light, but b/c I deal with lot of dust and I have only one camera
> body it's shaky.

So go with a good, cheap prime, an 70-200 L IS f/2.8 zoom, and get a 350D as
a 2nd body so you don't have to switch lenses. $2500 to $2800 and you end
up with two cameras instead of one. Forget option 2 above.

Greg

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Geesaman wrote:
> Gambo wrote:
>
>> David Geesaman wrote:
>>
>>> 1) Will any of these options make a minor or major improvement in my
>>> indoor shooting?
>>>
>>> 2) Do the advantages of the L-series zooms at f/2.8 show up using
>>> only a 300D? Will I ever want the IS if I carry a monopod for
>>> 150-200mm shooting?
>>>
>>> 3) Should I worry about getting the fastest lens I can afford (ISO
>>> 400 at f/2.8), or will getting good glass and higher ISO do better?
>>> (ISO 800 at f/3.5)
>>>
>>> 4) Are my wants different from the average users of this equipment,
>>> such that I should consider it when reading the reviews 'out there'?
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>> I shoot softball and some equestrian and have the 300D. After much
>> research and aginizing, I went with the Sigma 24-60 2.8 and the Sigma
>> 70-200 2.8 with a Sigma TC (2x). Gets the indoors/low light shots but
>> is a tad soft at 2.8. However, results are tack-sharp at 8.0 at
>> either end of both lenses. At 200ISO, f2.8 will give me 1/750 midday
>> to 1/125 in twilight. As it gets darker, I up the ISO to get the
>> shots. Indoors in equestrian events can be more of a challenge due to
>> barn lighting. It varies and I sometimes end up pushing ISO or
>> speed...with similar results. Don't know how soft the L galss is wide
>> open but I just couldn't justify the 30-35% price difference...
>
>
> Wow, that was quick, thanks. Is the Sigma 70-200 any sharper at
> f/2.8 w/o the 2x TC in places? The reviews I read all suggest the
> f/2.8Ls *are* tack sharp fully open, so you do gain something. Since
> the only thing I get are slightly better photos (which earn me nearly
> nothing), if I buy the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 I could look to borrow/test a
> 2.8L and upgrade if the comparison shows results.
> I'm looking for a local camera club where I can find some folks who
> might let me snap in their better lenses for some comparison shots. If
> that turns out well I think I could try some of all of these lenses
> firsthand.
>
> Dave
The 70-200 was soft even w/o the TC...I get shots I couldn't get before
(quite flexible in that regard), but I have to be cognizant of
over-cropping and introducing greater perception of the soft
focus/jaggies. I am happy with the purchase but recognize the limitations.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsdgjqo08m0@news4.newsguy.com...
> G.T. wrote:
> > So go with a good, cheap prime, an 70-200 L IS f/2.8 zoom, and get a
350D as
> > a 2nd body so you don't have to switch lenses. $2500 to $2800 and you
end
> > up with two cameras instead of one. Forget option 2 above.
>
> Interesting. That makes a lot more sense (and versatility) than 2
> L-series zooms. Unfortunately $2500+ is still a long stretch, like I
> said before. Do you feel IS is needed? (that would save $650)

I still don't have an IS lens so can't contribute there. I do have a
70-200L f/4.0 and many times wish I had at least the f/2.8. I have a
feeling if I had the f/2.8 I would want the IS version.

>
> Regarding Option 2, why should I forget it? It would seem if I want to
> upgrade, they could be sold for about 75% of the purchase price and the
> money put toward the L-series. Working my way up the cost ladder thru
> experience doesn't seem like a bad idea in any way.
>

As far as resale I'd say more like 80% for the mid-level Canon, but only 70%
for the Sigmas. I have a Tamron 24-135 as my main lens but it's focus speed
is frustrating compared to the Canon's I have. That's probably biasing me
against the Sigma solution.

Greg