I bought a brand Canon Eos Rebel last Christmas. It came with the 18-55IS lens, and 70-300 len. It came as a complete package.
I am looking for a 70-200 lens. It could be Canon lens or other compatible lens. I see the F2.8L series are out of my price range. The F4.0 L Canon lens is around $600. New or used is okay.
I will primarily taking my daughter pictures. I been told upgrade lenses before upgrading body.
Danny
1991 red nsx with a flux capacitor.
Any Canon 70-200L is very good. Get the IS version if you can. the f/4 IS is the best bang for the buck out of all of them.Originally Posted by SexyRed
Quite truthfully, I am not quite sure of your experience level but from what it sounds like the package should be more than enough for your needs.
Last edited by xknowonex; 12-03-2009 at 00:51.
A better lens will definitely give you better results than a new body.... unless the body is Jennifer Hawkins... but i digress....
other pointers -
* i agree with xknowonex, get IS if you can. I have one - gives you an extra 2 F-stops. hardly ever need a tripod.
* get a lens with an inner focusing system - much faster (catch the moment of your daughter), quieter
* i was going to write more but i need to go to bed, but here's a useful website to check out:
http://www.canonlensreview.com/
(note: after posting this i realize you have already done your homework... however it may still be worth checking out this website)
Last edited by NeoNSX; 12-03-2009 at 02:04.
70-200 f/4 (non-IS) is considered by many to be the sharpest of all the 70-200 Canon lenses. However, if you are shooting in low light, the 70-200 f/2.8 is about $1200 new and it'll give you a bit of extra low-light capability.
Also consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX II with HSM focus motor. It is arguably not quite as sharp (most of us won't really notice much of a difference) but it's cheaper than the Canon counterparts and comes with some standard equipment that doesn't come with the Canon (hood, tripod ring, etc, etc).
although I like my 18-55IS lens. But it is limited on telephoto.
The telephoto 70-300 I have is not IS. I just stink sitting their waiting for the lens to focus as my daughter is moving all over the place. I been told the 70-200 lens is a great lens to leave in all the time.
Even if the 70-200L is f/4 it will great lens even though its is not f/2.8?
Reason for my original post;
1. better pictures.
2. one size fits all lens. Meaning decreasing swapping between the 2 lens I currently have.
3. Taking more pics that allows for narrow depth of field; blurring out background.
1991 red nsx with a flux capacitor.
JonBoy,
do you recommend the Sigma EX I or II? Looks like EX I goes for about $400 used?
Danny
1991 red nsx with a flux capacitor.
Is there a non IS version? The 70-200 2.8 (IS) goes for around 1600. SUPER sharp. I would rather get the 2.8 for the added stop in low light instead of the "sharper" f4. I honestly don't think it's that big of a difference. Also, if you're looking at lens' at this price range, you might want to consider upgrading your body.
I would get the best lens possible because lens hold there value better then a NSX. I had gotten the 70-300 because I was in jam and needed the extra reach and it was a total disappointment unless shooting on a sunny day outside. I manned up to a 70-200 2.8 IS and never looked back. I plan to get every 2.8 lens out there I can or better because of the events I shoot there are times when you cannot use a flash and a fast piece of glass will make all the difference in the world. If you dont want to have your cash tied up in a lens you can always rent one for the day or buy it use it and sell it right away.
You can sometimes find some deals on the Photography on the Net for sale section and you can also see what they sell for used
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...splay.php?f=14
I just want to add this ..... your gonna be kicking yourself in the ass when that momment passes and you wish you had that faster lens
I spoke with ANYTIME today on the phone. He suggested the Canon 50mm F/2.8 II also know as nifty fifty. It was only $100. Went ahead and order it from B&H. From my reading it is great for portrait. This should be busy for awhile. Once again my emphasis is people(daughter/family) pic, indoors pic.
The problem I have with my current 70-300 lens doesn't always focus on auto. I have to switch to manual. Lots of time blurred pic due to moving.
What else should I be doing to take better pictures? I have taken a photography class with emphasis on photoshop. I learned more on photoshop than actual photo taking techniques with this class. Most of the time I just use the auto mode aperture priority or shutter priority.
Input appreciated.
1991 red nsx with a flux capacitor.
The Nifty Fifty is a great lens but its a fixed lens so your either gonna be moving around alot or doing alot of cropping. I gave my 70-300 away to my cousin for that reason it sucked in low light and was just not a great lens. To take better pictures you need to just learn how to adjust the settings and practice practice practice. You might want to also consider a external flash unit if your going to be taking alot of indoor shots....the infra red from the ETTL flash will help you focus in low light
Question... Is a DSLR more camera then you need ?
Last edited by Acura NsX Pilot; 12-03-2009 at 22:33.
For daily, all around use, I recommend the 24-70f2.8L. It's semi-wide for interior photos, gatherings, etc. and makes a beautiful Bokeh when extended. I've seen a few go for around $700~$800 used @ FredMiranda.
10-22f3.5~ For automotive photography, parties, group gatherings, tight spaces... and at f3.5, its decent enough for low light.
Any of the 70-200 L series have excellent depth and color, but at the length, its hard to use for daily activities. And unless you can be along the sidelines of most sports events, I find the zoom end of the 70-200 inadequate most of the time.
IMO, the sharpest and best portraiture lens out there are the 135f2 L and 85f1.2 L.
Tai Wan Ren | Taiwanese in culture and history.
Glass makes the difference between a potentially good photo and a potentially great photo. You are correct that it is better to upgrade to better quality glass before upgrading the body. An L series lens will produce better photos on a Rebel body than my old "standard" canon glass on my 5d Mark II.
Considering you have a Rebel with a 1.6x factor, your quest for a one size fits all will not be completely achieved with a 70-200 despite it being an excellent choice. Unfortunately, your effective range will be 112-320 which leaves you with no wide angle and a "wide" beyond what would typically be used for portraits. Unless you wanted to invest in a 28-300L (the most expensive lens I have ever purchased by my "everyday" lens for 90% of my shooting) you will still need to carry a second lens.
The nifty fifty is an excellent bang for the buck. With the 1.6x factor you actually are carrying an 80mm equivalent lens which is a very good choice for portraits of your daughter. Plus, with an F2.8 you can blur the background ("bokeh") for the effect you are seeking. An F4 can give that "blurred background" effect to a certain extent but a true bokeh generally could use nothing more than 2.8 although there are ways of composing shots to compensate but that will take practice.
Lenses should be considered investments that you will keep as you upgrade bodies later on. I generally pick up a new body every 14 months since by then I have well over 100,000 shutter activations but my L lenses get constant "abuse" and keep going (with some periodic maintenance needed from such use). As a result, buy as much lens as you can afford and do so one at a time if on a "budget" (as much as you can consider L glass to be within any budget) to get something that actually fits your needs and will last you as you change bodies later on.
Unless you just want range without ultimate quality gains in your shots, I would not recommend Sigma lenses. They are fine and reasonably priced but not in the same league as L glass. Some may say that most won't notice the difference but if you want to grow with your skills you won't notice the growth with the Sigma series. Yes, Sigma and less expensive "regular" Canon glass is fine for most typical photographers but if you are intent upon trying to get a better shot and want more "keepers" then it will be in the glass.
Now understand that you still need to practice and get a handle on composition and lighting but with digital photography and photoshop it is much easier to get a good shot by the low cost of shooting a lot of photos and being able to edit with a mouse rather than a wet darkroom. There is no reason any longer to just shoot one or two frames and potentially miss a smile or a look when you can do a burst and fire off 10-20 frames where you are virtually guaranteed that one kodak moment you are looking for.
Your nifty fifty plus a 70-200 would be a good combo but you will always find that there is a situation for which you will need another lens. I know many people who rely upon the 70-200 as their "one size fits all" lens but I find it too limiting and that is why I bought my 28-300 for my first trip to the Galapagos where lens switching in the field would have been difficult to do. But, once again, that is over $2000 just for the lens so it is not for the faint of heart (or wallet).
I carry the following lenses:
16-35 L
24-70 L
85 L (F1.2)
100 L macro IS
28-300 L
100-400 L
Although the 28-300 is my "go to lens" for most shoots, I do like the 24-70 for "personal" shots such as "intimate" gatherings like a party in relatively confined spaces where I don't need a telephoto capability and could use some wide for getting the entire group in the shot. But I also have a full frame body so I get the full use of the range.
So I guess the short answer is get the fastest 70-200 you can afford since it is an investment but you will still find the need to carry a second lens mainly as a result of your 1.6x factor. Until you can get a full frame body just remember that you will always lose out on the wide end of the spectrum with every lens.
Last edited by RSO 34; 12-04-2009 at 03:51.
http://photography.robertondrovic.com
Galapagos Islands
www.DeadStadiumTour.com
NSXCA Member #1048
NSXCA Secretary
I personally think this seems a bit backwards - if you're very new to photography don't invest so much in to equipment and invest more into learning. Knowing your camera and having good optics are important, but more importantly is knowing about light and composition. I've seen some very sharp images taken with $8000 camera rigs that are terrible. I've seen some images taken by a camera phone that are very moving. Stick with what you have (the zoom and the 50mm). Learn about quality and direction of light (by reading lots or putting some money into a good basic lighting & composition course). See what kind of images you can produce, see if the hobby 'sticks' and then invest thousands of dollars in high end equipment.
my .02c buy canon lens only, they are the best len out there.
Currently I have EFS 18-55 IS, 70-300, and 50mm 1.8 II. 430EX Flash.
I have narrow it down to Canon L Series F/4. It is a great value and I don't see myself spending $1200+ for lens.
17-40 L around $600
70-200L around $600
Given with the current lens I have would the the telephoto seem to be next logical purchase? My brother is getting married this month and I want to practice then.
In the end I would like the following lens in the bag;
17-40L F/4
50mm nifty fifty
70-200L F/4
Way down the line; What is a great used full frame camera Canon should I look out for with great value?
I know this hobby will stick, and want to learn more on composition/technique/lighting. I took a photo class at a local community college but it was mainly photoshop. Any suggestion where and what to learn.
Thank for all the input.
1991 red nsx with a flux capacitor.
Your best bet is to go to a pro camera store and test out these lens' you are currently considering. Personally, I find the 17-40 limiting on a crop. But test out and see what works for you and what doesn't. Even my 24-70L (which many consider a great all-around), I find limiting on 40d. But I plan on eventually getting a FF, so it stays.
Based upon your needs and budget, the 70-200 would be a good and logical choice.
There are not many full frame cameras at the moment and they tend to be the most expensive ones so you would do best to work on your skills with the Rebel for now.
And be careful of used camera bodies. I could sell you a two year old Canon 5d in "mint condition". Unless you had the shutter activations checked you would think you had a great deal but I have almost 150,000 activations on that body. Many times the better camera bodies were owned by photo journalists or the like rather than a hobbyist taking only a few thousand shots a year so a relatively "young" camera body could have seen quite a bit of action.
You should also follow along with the Canon forum:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/
as well as get a subscription to Popular Photography.
http://photography.robertondrovic.com
Galapagos Islands
www.DeadStadiumTour.com
NSXCA Member #1048
NSXCA Secretary
ex ii.
Yes, there is. You can get IS and non-IS versions of both the f/4 and f/2.8.
I agree with your preference but that's a lot of coin for a len to most people (me included). I'd love a 70-200 f/2.8 IS but I'm going to need quite a bit of time to justify blowing $1600 on a lens.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks