richard_martin10

<p>I have 3 lenses which cover most of what I need which are Tamron 17-50, Canon 70-200, and Canon 400. I'm very happy with all these and wouldn't think of changing at this point but I find on occasion that the 17-50 isn't long enough and carrying the 70-200 is overkill. I thought about the Canon 17-85 but the reviews aren't great. Does anyone else find themselves in this situation and what do you do? </p>

<p>When I shoot race cars with my 40D I use the camera in shutter priority mode, center focal point only, AF set on servo. I hold the shutter halfway down and follow the car, clicking the shutter when the car gets to where I want it. For fast moving race cars 1/500 to 1/800 is the exposure time I want to be around, and of course a fast focusing lens is a must, anything with ring USM should do it. I get about an 80% keeper ratio. </p><div></div>

<p>Diana D....while all these lenses perform well I still stand by the 400 prime being the best of the lot. Of the 3 pictures you posted the one taken with the 400 is crisper, just a nicer photo. My own results prove this out also, especially anything moving. There is just a sharper edge to the photos you take with it, nicer bokeh, a real keeper!</p>

<p>For me, handholding the 400 5.6L is not difficult. The lens is long and can be a bit ungainly to carry but it is not hard to keep it pointed in the right direction. Heres a shot of the Moon I recently took, handheld, to show more of what this lens is capable of.</p><div></div>

<p>I have the 400 5.6, I use it on a 40D for mostly auto racing but also for other stuff and its fantastic. I have minimal experience with the 100-400 but I thought the few pics I shot with it were softer then the prime, and the AF speed was a bit slower. You can't beat the AF speed of the 400, it locks onto fast moving race cars and tracks them with ease. Very sharp, great colors, I handhold it all the time, I've included a photo for your amusement. </p><div></div>

<p>I have the 400 5.6, I use it on a 40D for mostly auto racing but also for other stuff and its fantastic. I have minimal experience with the 100-400 but I thought the few pics I shot with it were softer then the prime, and the AF speed was a bit slower. You can't beat the AF speed of the 400, it locks onto fast moving race cars and tracks them with ease. Very sharp, great colors, I've included a photo for your amusement. </p>

<p>And honestly speaking ...70-200 f4 L is a sort of a bait....If you look in the second market you'll see that is the lens that everybody sells ....most for an upgrade to 2.8 ...and others for the IS version..</p>

<p><br />That may be true for some people. I fell into the same trap to "upgrade" to a non IS 2.8 version. For my usage in daytime there was no need to carry around the extra weight as I never used it a large apertures. There is no difference whatsoever in the performance of the F/4 and F/2.8 from my point of view so I sold the 2.8 and went back to an F/4. The lighter weight, equal performance, and the fact that I could put 500.00 back in my pocket made the decision very easy. I'm sure I'm in the minority with my thinking but thats my story and I'm sticking with it!</p>

<p>I had the same choice to make. I ended up with both of them for a year or so and ultimately sold the 70-300. My reasons may not apply to you, I take mostly fast action motorsports photos and while the 70-300 worked, the L lens is far superior. The focusing is lightning fast on the L while just adequate on the IS. Sharpness is also much better on the L at the long end of the lenses. I would say the IS is a good walk around point and shoot lens but the L gives you better results in all categories. I don't miss the 100mm extra focal length as the L is so sharp that cropping pictures results in minimal to no loss of sharpness. Price difference is minimal between the lenses so that shouldn't be a factor. When I review my pics with both lenses you can spot the L photos without looking at the data.....IMHO no photo bag should be without the 70-200 L.</p><div></div>

<p>Last month I posted a question asking how to photograph the Moon without it looking like a plain white disc. The helpful answers I got did the trick and last night I shot the attached photo. Seems like you need to shoot manual mode with fast shutter speeds and a smaller aperture to underexpose your shot and there you go! Thanks again for the advice....Rich Martin<br>

PS....Canon 40D/Canon 400mm F5.6L handheld.</p><div></div>

<p>After a couple of years of messing around with many body/lens combos I have finally stopped at the 40D. I also have the Tamron 17-50 along with Canon 70-200 F4L and 400 F5.6L. The 40D/Tamron combination have produced some of the finest photographs I've ever taken, partly because of all the learning I've done along the way, and partly because of the quality of the equipment. The one thing I have found out with 100% certainty in my photographic journey is that most of the errors you make are not the equipments fault, it is probably human related. Stick with your excellent combination of equipment and learn with it. Also, don't focus so much on what is written around the internet. I've experienced no focusing problems whatsoever with the Canon, and the Tamron is also right on the money. You can make yourself nuts with other peoples opinions. Once you get more experience you will really appreciate your excellent equipment.....good luck, Rich </p>

<p>PS.......I've also seen articles around on the internet that say the 70-200 with 1.4 extender is still sharper then the 70-300. When I get a few minutes I'll post the links.</p>

<p>Sarah, IMHO variations between copies are extremely rare. I've had dozens of lenses over the years and never found this in any of them. My current copy of the 70-200 is as sharp as anything I had in the past. I have nothing against the 70-300, it is a fine lens but it is nowhere near the L lens. I don't like the 1.4 extender with it, if you need the 300mm focal length then by all means get the 70-300, especially if fast focusing isn't an issue. </p>

<p>I owned them both and without question the 70-200 is sharper by far. The 70-300 is a nice lens but ultimately for my purposes it didn't focus fast enough for fast moving race cars. Check out the digitalpicture website for a comparison of the lenses in question at this link- <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a> This should help with the sharpness issue.....good luck.</p>

<p>My feeling is you are much better off with the zoom. You will keep it on your camera for more shots then any other lens. I had the Sigma and sold it in favor of the Tamron. Much better IQ, the Tamron is my everyday workhorse lens and I've been more then pleased with the results. I didn't consider the Canon 17-55 only because of price. IS is not an issue for me at this focal length so twice the price didn't make personal sense for me. As a second lens either an 85 1.8 would be a great choice but I'll bet the Tamron will hardly ever leave your 50D! Best of luck with the new baby, Rich</p>

<p>Ditto. I tried out most of the competion to this lens before I bought and kept the Tamron. Excellent IQ, nice colors, an excellent lens.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your suggestions, I'll give it a try tonight if the conditions are clear. I spend so much time on my racing and railroad pics that I sometimes forget about some of the other cool stuff to shoot!</p>

<p>This evening while out for a dog walk I noticed the Moon was exceptionally bright and full with lots of visible detail. I ran inside and grabbed my 40D, 400mm 5.6 L and tripod. I took a number of shots but they all came out with no detail, just a bright white disc without the dark features visible on the surface. How do you shoot the Moon ( no jokes please!) without it just turning into a featureless white disc?</p>

Vintage Corvette, SVRA @ Millville, NJ August 2008. Canon 40D, 70-200 F4L.<div></div>

Another one from Mid Ohio.<div></div>

I shoot Canon equipment mostly for auto racing. I use the AF in servo mode, center focus point only. For frisbee dogs 1/500 sec is more then enough, as long as your lens is a fast focusing one. Its just a matter of zeroing in on your target as the background is in focus but your subject isn't. Take lots of pics and you'll get good ones, however, some lenses are not capable of tracking moving subjects as good as others so you may need to look at the equipment.<div></div>

Since the racing season is over I thought I'd post a shot of the Petit Le Mans this past October just to perk up any

auto racing fans we have in the forum.<div></div>

I switched from an XTi to a 40D about 5 months ago, I shoot auto racing more then anything else. I got rid of the XTi because of all the exposed buttons on the back of the camera making it easy to switch settings inadvertantly, other then that the performance was excellent. The XTi never hunted around or mis-focused. Fast moving race cars are quite a challenge for an AF system, the XTi handled it great. That said, the 40D is even better. It locks on quicker and my keeper rate is much higher. I wouldn't trade my 40D for anything right now. Are you using the servo mode for moving objects? If not then you may be better off in the one shot mode, or perhaps you should have the camera checked out by Canon because your experience is much different then mine. If not for the issue that I had I probably would still have it, IMHO a very competent camera.

Totally agree, once you try either version of the 70-200 you will be hooked! I use the non IS F4 version for auto racing using AF servo and the combo easily keeps up with the fast moving cars. Your kids on the baseball diamond will be easy pickings for you with the new lens!

For what I'm doing weight is very important. I would consider myself an above average photographer, I contribute pics to 2 auto racing websites, sold many pics, and have had some pics published. At the racetrack walking around with a ton of glass can be exhausting. I used a 70-200 F4 as a staple lens for a long time but recently was tempted to buy a 2.8 version. I lugged that thing around along with a 400 5.6 L for 4 days in Georgia last month. When I got back I processed about 1000 shots and compared them to the F4 and found no difference. I didn't use the 2.8 setting in the bright sunny conditions at all and felt I never would so I sold the 2.8 and bought another F4! By the way, I chose the Tamron 17-50 over the Canon 17-55 strickly by cash.......the images weren't twice as good for twice the money, 500.00 is better in my pocket then the lens dealer! My one wish from Canon would be a 70-300 L the same size as the DO lens....would solve my backache problems!

I all depends on your usage, mine is mostly auto racing and outdoor stuff. I had the F4 non IS version for a year and loved it. Recently had a chance to upgrade to a 2.8 non IS and did it. I toted the lens around for a race weekend taking about 1000 pics. After I got home and processed them I compared the results to my F4 version. I found that there was no difference in image quality, focus speed was the same, my keeper ratio was the same. If anything I think the photos I took with the F4 came out with a bit nicer colors to my eye. I just sold the 2.8 on ebay and bought another F4 non IS to save the weight and put 500.00 back into my pocket. Thats just my story, there are some on this forum that are totally hooked on the 2.8 version and would disagree with my opinion.