Help needed with Lens selection for 10D

Hello all,

 

I am looking for a longer lens to accompany my 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS.

I am new to photography (especially digital) and will be shooting

everything from air shows and Formula One ( F1 ) races to boats and

lighthouses. I know this is a bit general but I think the 135mm

might be a bit short and cannot see spending $6,500 on the 400mm

f/2.8 until I get a bit more experienced and can afford the funds

required to purchase it. Having said that, can anyone lend some

advice as to what lenses to look at??? Furthermore what is the

general consensus regarding an f/stop of 2.8 for this type of

shooting? Would the 4.0 serve my needs? Should I look at a shorter

(but high quality) lens such as the 70-200mm 2.8?

 

Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

-Norman

<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html</a>

<p>

How much money do you have and how long a lens do you need?

<p>

The 70-200/4L is a great lens for under $600 if you don't need more than 200mm, but it doesn't have IS. You can use a 1.4x TC on it to get 280mm at f5.6. You can get the f2.8 version with IS, but you'll pay and extra $1000 for it and you'll have a larger, heavier lens.

<p>

The 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS is pretty good if you want something in a long zoom with IS, but it's pretty big and bulky and priced around $1300.

<p>

The new <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/28-300-70-300.html#do">70-300/4.5-5.6DO IS</a> is about the same size and shape as your 28-135, is supposed to be very sharp, but costs $1299.

<p>

Whether you need f2.8 depends on what film you intend to use (or digital ISO setting you're prepared to go to). F2.8 is nice, but f4 is also good and it's smaller and cheaper. Even f5.6 is usable and you'll get a longer lens you can still carry and afford. Lens speed costs a lot in terms of both $ and size and weight.

<p>

Then there's always the 75-300IS. Not the world's sharpest lens at 300mm, but better than many people give it credit for.

I have the 70-200 F/4 and like it a lot, light and not that expensive and very sharp and fast focus. I would suggest you pick one of these up. I actually have an extra tripod collar for it if you need it. Can save you a few bucks there, I would let it go for $25 less than B&H and its like new. I ended up purchasing a 400 5.6 and it has one with it and I can't see having 2. Let me know, or if anyone else wants it you can reach me at kendunn@tvscable.com . Thanks

KEnny

First let me say thank you to those who responded so quickly. To clarify some things. I am expecting to spend under $2,000 for the lens and as far as focal length I am a bit in the dark on that one.. I was thinking "I will eventually buy a 300mm 2.8 prime so should I buy the 70-200mm 2.8now and then buy the prime later"? Do I even need such a fast lens? Because I am such a novice I am unsure so I need the experience of others to help me narrow this down a bit. Eventually I think I will need a longer lens around 300mm to 400mm and also are unsure if there is a significant quality difference to justify the price.

The only reasons to get the F2.8 is for DOF isolation and better autofocus capability in low light. For all other uses you can crank the ASA up and then post process with neatimage or noiseninja.

 

IS is handy however it's expensive in the 70-200F2.8 version, note the 100-400 has a love / hate relationship on this and other boards, users either rave about it or dump it.

 

If you are looking at the 70-200F2.8 be sure to check out Sigma's offering, you may also want to look at a 17-40F4L for the landscape stuff.

 

Good luck.

 

Gerry

Why not a 300f4?

You already have the 28-135. That duplicates too much of the 70-200 f4L range, so I would suggest the 200/2.8 and either a TC 1.4 (a digital 448mm f4!) or the TC 2x (Digital 640mm f5.6). You can crank the ISO up to 800 and still get very clean shots, so I would think the 100/2.8 plus 1.4 TC would be a spectacular duo.

bad typing. That's 200 f2.8, not 100mm.

If you are a novice, I would recommend just buying a cheap consumer telephoto lens for now (IE EF 75-300 f3.5-5.6) and just practice with that till you feel comfortable that it is time to step up. If you do not want such a cheap lens, your next best bet is the 70-200 F4L. Same protocol, and when you are ready, I would recommend the under rated 400mm F5.6L.

Tokina and Sigma offer some reasonable lenses at reasonable prices. For example Tokina offer a 80-200 f2.8 at about 1/3 the price of Canon's 70-200 f2.8 IS.

 

Same story for Sigma's 70-200 f2.8.

 

Tokina also offer a 80-400; Sigma have a 135-400, 170-500 and 50-500.

 

I've met one professional wildlife photographer, who obviously depends on selling his images to make a living; he was happy with the image quality of Sigma lenses. I've also been to a lecture by a FRPS who used a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography. His slides seemed sharp enough.

 

Simon,

 

In black and white, everyone's a hero!

You already have a zoom to 135mm, so rather than go for another zoom with lots of overlap I would go with the 200mm f2.8. It will work very well with the 1.4x and even useable with the 2x. When you can afford it the 400/5.6 L will be much better. Heck for $2000 you could buy the 200/2.8, 1.4x, and 400/5.6.

 

f2.8 was more important in the 300 and 400 lenses when Kodachrome 25 was the standard. The 300/4 and 400/5.6 are much easier to work with and will give excellent results. The problem with the 300/4 is that it is too far away from your 135mm lens and probably a bit short for what you need. Good luck.

I am definitely getting my homework done here and I have some great help to thank.. so thanks guys I really appreciate it.

 

Oh also.. what are your thoughts on the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6?

 

I am looking at this because of I will not overlap much and as mentioned.. I can upgrade at a later point without the need for a teleconverter.

<P> <i>Oh also.. what are your thoughts on the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6? </i> </P>

<P> It's a <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml">great lens</a>. See reviews <a href="http://www.photographyreview.com/reviewscrx.aspx">here</a>, <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=1">here</a> and <a href="http://www.camerareview.com">here</a>.</P>

 

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

First let me thank everyone for their suggestions and comments they certainly have helped in answering my questions regarding aperture as well as narrow the field in lens selection.

 

The two lenses I have narrowed my selection down to for reasons of performance, versatility, and price are the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and the 70-200mm f/2.8. Both look to be great lenses but the only downer in my eyes is the design of the 100-400mm lens with its� push/pull zoom. As mentioned earlier in the thread, I am new to photography as well as digital and there is a lot of discussion not only concerning these two lenses but also that of dust entering the system. Having said that does anyone have experience with the 400mm lens and it contaminating the CMOS sensor? While at B&H yesterday I could actually feel the air, which amounts to aprox. the volume of a soda can, being pushed through the eye piece while I was zooming in and out with the lens. I guess the sensor is somewhat protected and not exposed until the trip of the shutter but it's not an air tight chamber either.

 

I am still up in the air on these two lenses... Any experience with the 70-200mm and a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter? I hate the idea of using one but again it's from my naivety and not experience from which I question the image quality derrived from using one.

I personaly own a 100-400 L and have had no problems with dust on my 300Ds sensor. Then again, I do a CMOS cleaning every month, and the 300D is fairly resistant to dust, so maybe my experience is not the best one.