Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon Telephoto Zoom  (Read 4756 times)
bradf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« on: November 21, 2009, 04:01:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello everybody. I'm a beginner having just bought a Canon 500D with the EFS 18-200mm lens.
I'm interested in investing in another lens for sports (ie outdoor) and concert (ie indoor) photography.
An EF lens would be ideal and I'm happy to spend a little more for a long term investment.
The 2 Canon EF 70-300 lenses - one DO and the other half the price catch my eye.
Research on this site suggests both are good. Some suggest the cheaper lens takes better pictures ??
Any comments or other lens suggestions for this beginner most appreciated.
Cheers,
bradf
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2009, 04:54:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Welcome to the board! I don't know much about telephoto zooms as I don't shoot sports, but I've been reading a lot of reviews on wide angles lately. The best site on Canon lenses I've found is here, which has reviews of several of the zooms.

If price is a serious consideration (it should always be), I would also look at Sigma and Tamron lenses for Canon mounts. They are generally quite a bit cheaper, and often just as good.

For sports use, you should read the reviews carefully about their auto-focus speed - shooting sports you won't have time to wait for the lens to focus.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2009, 06:22:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
For sports use, you should read the reviews carefully about their auto-focus speed - shooting sports you won't have time to wait for the lens to focus.

Faster lenses (ones with wider apertures / smaller F-numbers) generally AF faster and more precisely than slower lenses even if the same AF motor is used in both. There are 2 reasons for this:

1. AF always happens with the lens wide open. The more light the lens passes to the AF sensor, the better AF will work, and the lower the ambient light level where AF becomes unacceptably slow.

2. The wider the aperture, the greater the error signal when focus is off. This makes it easier for the AF mechanism to tell precisely which way and how far focus needs to be adjusted.
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2009, 06:33:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
Faster lenses (ones with wider apertures / smaller F-numbers) generally AF faster and more precisely than slower lenses even if the same AF motor is used in both. There are 2 reasons for this:

1. AF always happens with the lens wide open. The more light the lens passes to the AF sensor, the better AF will work, and the lower the ambient light level where AF becomes unacceptably slow.

2. The wider the aperture, the greater the error signal when focus is off. This makes it easier for the AF mechanism to tell precisely which way and how far focus needs to be adjusted.

I've actually suspected as much, but haven't ever had the need to check this as I don't need fast AF for my shooting. Thanks for the info!
Logged

bradf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2009, 04:27:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks feppe and Jonathon.
Thats useful info you've given me.
I'm thinking now the Canon 70-300 IS USM (NOT DO) seems to be a very cost-effective solution for me.
Any furthur comments most appreciated.
Thanks,
bradf
Logged
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2009, 09:49:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bradf
Thanks feppe and Jonathon.
Thats useful info you've given me.
I'm thinking now the Canon 70-300 IS USM (NOT DO) seems to be a very cost-effective solution for me.
Any furthur comments most appreciated.
Thanks,
bradf
Shooting on a friend's 350D with the 70-300 ISUSM, I found it capable of delivering sharp images. But you have to really know what you are doing. Preferably pre-focus and shoot manual, or you may get a lot of misses. I found the auto focus slowwwwww.
You don't say what sort of concerts you want to photograph, and under what lighting. I've used my 70-200 f4 IS on a 40D for orchestral rehearsals under natural daylight, and at gigs using the stage lighting, and it's really not fast enough. 200mm was long enough for both (no point even bringing the camera out at a rock concert if you are not by the stage), but you can miss a lot of good shots if you can't go down to say, 40mm or less. At f4 you have to closely time your shot to catch a performer when they are still.
David
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2009, 10:23:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Taquin
Shooting on a friend's 350D with the 70-300 ISUSM, I found it capable of delivering sharp images. But you have to really know what you are doing. Preferably pre-focus and shoot manual, or you may get a lot of misses. I found the auto focus slowwwwww.
You don't say what sort of concerts you want to photograph, and under what lighting. I've used my 70-200 f4 IS on a 40D for orchestral rehearsals under natural daylight, and at gigs using the stage lighting, and it's really not fast enough. 200mm was long enough for both (no point even bringing the camera out at a rock concert if you are not by the stage), but you can miss a lot of good shots if you can't go down to say, 40mm or less. At f4 you have to closely time your shot to catch a performer when they are still.
David

I found the 70-300 IS USM was a lot better on my 40D than any of my previous cameras.  I'm not sure how the 40D AF compares to the 500D.  I suspect the 40D has better AF than the 500D.

I've only shot it in daylight, however, so....
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2009, 10:24:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I've shot a lot of concerts, and regard an f/2.8 lens as a minimum when shooting even with a 1-series pro-level Canon body. The only exception to this is with wide angle; I've gotten away with using a 17-40/4L on several occasions. My most-used lenses are the 24-70/2.8 L, 70-200/2.8 L IS, 17-40/4 L, 100/2, and 135/2 L. The primes don't get as much use because you can't always shoot from wherever you want at a concert; you generally have to shoot from a limited area and zoom as needed to get the best framing for a given shot. You'll get better results with an f/2.8 zoom than an f/4 pretty much any time you're shooting concerts.
Logged

bradf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2009, 10:51:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Many thanks again folks.
I'm starting to understand the issues.
Telephoto zooms with f2 or f2.5 are probably above my pricepoint at the moment.
Cheers,
Brad.
Logged
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2009, 12:26:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bradf
Many thanks again folks.
I'm starting to understand the issues.
Telephoto zooms with f2 or f2.5 are probably above my pricepoint at the moment.
Cheers,
Brad.
All is not lost. Why not spend some time with the lens you have. Apart from gaining experience, you may find the actual range you end up using is quite small. Maybe 40-80 at a concert or whatever, and a fast zoom in a smaller range may be more affordable. You may even find you could get away with a prime lens. There are some very good primes (great sharpness, fast, very average build quality) relatively cheap. So often I've thought I've needed one thing, but when out in the field have quickly changed my mind.
There is also the second hand market. That's the first place I look for a lens I want but may not use a lot.
David.
PS. If you are doing concerts where there is amplification USE EARPLUGS!!!!  You will be working directly in front of the speakers and your hearing will be damaged faster than you would believe possible.
Logged

bradf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2009, 01:52:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks again.
Despite my subject "telephoto Zoom"  I think you have made a very good suggestion Taquin.
I noticed that I am using a focal length of 80-90mm with my kid's basketball and my problem has been the slow AF and f setting.
I will look at an appropriate prime.
Same goes for concerts (indoor orchestras ) where I usually set up my camera on a tripod 'down the back". I may find an appropriate fast prime with more experience.
Cheers,
bradf.
Logged
Ed Blagden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2009, 02:40:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bradf
Thanks again.
Despite my subject "telephoto Zoom"  I think you have made a very good suggestion Taquin.
I noticed that I am using a focal length of 80-90mm with my kid's basketball and my problem has been the slow AF and f setting.
I will look at an appropriate prime.
Same goes for concerts (indoor orchestras ) where I usually set up my camera on a tripod 'down the back". I may find an appropriate fast prime with more experience.
Cheers,
bradf.

Brad

You might want to take a look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM.  About 600 UK pounds, so a bit more expensive than the Canon 70-300 IS, and a bit less expensive than the 70-300 DO.

It is a great lens... optically not quite on a par with the Canon L equivalent, but pretty damn close.  It doesn't have IS of course, but in these days of sensors going up to ISO1600 and beyond, that may not matter so much.  I have owned one of these for years and will not be parted from it: very sharp, great bokeh, very quiet, and very fast AF speed due to the big 2.8 aperture.  Also the build quality is great - it can't be compared to the rattly and squeaky old Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 which I sold recently.  In most respects it is on a par with Canon L glass, for half the money.  I believe that Tamron make a good equivalent too, but I haven't used one.

You may have read stories about compatibility issues between Canon and Sigma lenses.  This is certainly a problem with older model Sigma lenses, but AFAIK there are no issues with Sigma's HSM lenses which they introduced a few years back.

Judging by your needs and your budget, this one might well hit the spot.

Ed
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 03:00:34 AM by Ed B » Logged

Visit my Flickr page
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad