Canon lens upgrades for available light action photography

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

David Geesaman - 11 Aug 2005 20:15 GMT

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

Reply to this Message

Gambo - 11 Aug 2005 21:55 GMT

> 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
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>
> 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...

Reply to this Message

David Geesaman - 11 Aug 2005 22:42 GMT

>> 1) Will any of these options make a minor or major improvement in my
>> indoor shooting?
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> 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

Reply to this Message

Gambo - 12 Aug 2005 00:04 GMT

>>> 1) Will any of these options make a minor or major improvement in my
>>> indoor shooting?
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> 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.

Reply to this Message

G.T. - 11 Aug 2005 23:14 GMT

> 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
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> 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

Reply to this Message

David Geesaman - 11 Aug 2005 23:35 GMT

> 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)

    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.

    Dave

Reply to this Message

Don - 12 Aug 2005 03:35 GMT

David

Go for the L if you can afford them even if this does seem costly. Its more
costly to go the route I did. That is the non Canon lenses followed by
disappointment and then having to buy the good lenses to get the quality I
wanted in the first place. I now own mainly L series lenses except for the
50mm 1.8 fixed and the 28 - 135 IS (plus a kit lens that came with the 20D).
These are matched to a 20D body. The IS can be a god send if you shoot in
low light and cannot use a tripod or monopod. The 70 to 200 F4 L series is
a great lens and I use that for horse shows (mainly outside) and its
fantastic, light and quick focusing. I would go for the 2.8 if I could have
afforded it. However, with the 20D I can crank the ISO TO 800 and with the
F4 lens still get a bloody sharp print. I also have the 400 fixed F4.6 L
series which is also a fantastic bang for buck lens. There are some non
Canon lenses that are cheaper and have good reps. A little bit of research
will soon track these down for you. I have used both SIGMA and Tamron and
am finally back to all Canon. This decision was made on compatibility and
quality grounds. I also lost money on the non L series lenses I have
purchased and subsequently resold when I wasn't happy with them. This
hasn't been the case with the 1 L series lens I sold. Long term its cheaper
to go the expensive route in the first place if you can find the cash up
front.

regards

Don from Down Under.

>> So go with a good, cheap prime, an 70-200 L IS f/2.8 zoom, and get a 350D
>> as
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Dave

Reply to this Message

G.T. - 12 Aug 2005 05:46 GMT

> > 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
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 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

Reply to this Message