Canon Lenses ?
Discussion
Looking for some advice from the Motorsport photographers please.
I'm looking to upgrade some of my gear before Le Mans this year and wondered where I should be looking.
Camera body or lenses?
My current gear is
Canon 10D ,
EF17-40mm f4 LUSM
EF28-135mm f3.5-5.6
EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L
2xTC
SO , do I go for a better Canon body or some better glass?
I'm interested in the EF70-200 f2.8 L IS USM ?
or maybe an alternative option is to rent a EF300mm f2.8 L IS USM (to use with 2x tele at le Mans)
Shady
I'm looking to upgrade some of my gear before Le Mans this year and wondered where I should be looking.
Camera body or lenses?
My current gear is
Canon 10D ,
EF17-40mm f4 LUSM
EF28-135mm f3.5-5.6
EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L
2xTC
SO , do I go for a better Canon body or some better glass?
I'm interested in the EF70-200 f2.8 L IS USM ?
or maybe an alternative option is to rent a EF300mm f2.8 L IS USM (to use with 2x tele at le Mans)
Shady
Bee_Jay said:
RENT the 300 2.8 - you will love it.
You already have an impressive setup as it is, and though I agree the 70-200 fits nicely into the set, it is not going to rock your world of motorsport photography as much as the 300 will!!!
Try Calumet for rentals.
sounds good. I did rent the 300 f2.8 from Calumet last year, to use with the 2x tele at Biggin Hill.
It is a great peice of kit, but bloody heavy. Like you guys say I doubt I could ever justify buying one outright verses teh amount of usage.
I'd suggest replacing the 28-135 IS with the 24-105L and getting a 30D. The 70-200 of any variety is also well worth having.
Also, if you want 300mm @ f2.8 how about the Sigma 120-300? I have one and it is excellent...
This was with the 120-300 and Sigma 2x Convertor..
Click!!
>> Edited by monkeyhanger on Wednesday 24th May 20:29
Also, if you want 300mm @ f2.8 how about the Sigma 120-300? I have one and it is excellent...
This was with the 120-300 and Sigma 2x Convertor..
Click!!
>> Edited by monkeyhanger on Wednesday 24th May 20:29
monkeyhanger said:
I'd suggest replacing the 28-135 IS with the 24-105L and getting a 30D. The 70-200 of any variety is also well worth having.
Also, if you want 300mm @ f2.8 how about the Sigma 120-300? I have one and it is excellent...
This was with the 120-300 and Sigma 2x Convertor..
Click!!
>> Edited by monkeyhanger on Wednesday 24th May 20:29
That is just awesome. Its so crisp.
tertius said:
I'd suggest replacing the 28-135 IS with the 24-105L and getting a 30D. The 70-200 of any variety is also well worth having.
Also, if you want 300mm @ f2.8 how about the Sigma 120-300? I have one and it is excellent...
This was with the 120-300 and Sigma 2x Convertor..
Click!!
>> Edited by monkeyhanger on Wednesday 24th May 20:29
That is just awesome. Its so crisp.
second that. Out of interest do you have the stats on that shot and what body was it on ? Reason I ask is, I've read a few reviews of the 120-300 after your post and it seems opinion differs between Canon and Nikon owners on the quality, with Canons being dissapointed?
>> Edited by shadytree on Thursday 25th May 05:32
shadytree said:
Reason I ask is, I've read a few reviews of the 120-300 after your post and it seems opinion differs between Canon and Nikon owners on the quality, with Canons being dissapointed?
Well I'm a happy 120-300 user. Use it with a 1DmkII and a 10D on occation. Mail me if you'd like some full res test shots.
bananagravy said:
looking at that I would say you dont need anything... I shot everything last year with a 100-400 and was fine, adding in the crop factor of your camera you shouldnt need anything longer.
Matt
a few months back you were fine shooting with a 1D - didn't need any more...
Shadytree said:
I'm interested in the EF70-200 f2.8 L IS USM ?
or maybe an alternative option is to rent a EF300mm f2.8 L IS USM (to use with 2x tele at le Mans)
70-200 is an absolutely top notch piece of gear - get one if you can
but i would say for le mans go for the rental 300mm
actually - push the boat out - get the 400mm f/2.8!
shadytree said:
Reason I ask is, I've read a few reviews of the 120-300 after your post and it seems opinion differs between Canon and Nikon owners on the quality, with Canons being dissapointed?
>> Edited by shadytree on Thursday 25th May 05:32
T'was on my one and only body, a Canon 20D.
As i said it was the 120-300 with 2x Convertor..
Exif as follows..
Make = Canon
Model = Canon EOS 20D
Software = Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/400"
F Number = F14
Exposure Program = Shutter priority
ISO Speed Ratings = 400
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Metering Mode = Pattern
Focal Length = 521mm
I know several Canon owners with the same lens and they all love it. It's superb on it's own and still very good with the 2x Convertor. I haven't tried it with the 1.4x but everything i'm told suggests there is little or no loss of quality or focus speed.
I'll upload a few more hi-res examples later, with and without the TC
dcw@pr said:
looking at that I would say you dont need anything... I shot everything last year with a 100-400 and was fine, adding in the crop factor of your camera you shouldnt need anything longer.
Matt
a few months back you were fine shooting with a 1D - didn't need any more...
classic 1d is a beaut. gives better colour than the later ones...
bananagravy said:
looking at that I would say you dont need anything... I shot everything last year with a 100-400 and was fine, adding in the crop factor of your camera you shouldnt need anything longer.
Matt
a few months back you were fine shooting with a 1D - didn't need any more...
classic 1d is a beaut. gives better colour than the later ones...
maybe if you didn't turn the saturation to +59 you would like the colour from your current machine...
dcw@pr said:
looking at that I would say you dont need anything... I shot everything last year with a 100-400 and was fine, adding in the crop factor of your camera you shouldnt need anything longer.
Matt
a few months back you were fine shooting with a 1D - didn't need any more...
classic 1d is a beaut. gives better colour than the later ones...
maybe if you didn't turn the saturation to +59 you would like the colour from your current machine...
Maybe if you didnt spot colour everything you would have a more informed opinion.
bananagravy said:
looking at that I would say you dont need anything... I shot everything last year with a 100-400 and was fine, adding in the crop factor of your camera you shouldnt need anything longer.
Matt
a few months back you were fine shooting with a 1D - didn't need any more...
classic 1d is a beaut. gives better colour than the later ones...
maybe if you didn't turn the saturation to +59 you would like the colour from your current machine...
Maybe if you didnt spot colour everything you would have a more informed opinion.
oooooh - look who has got himself an "informed opinion"
slap my wrist
dcw@pr said:
looking at that I would say you dont need anything... I shot everything last year with a 100-400 and was fine, adding in the crop factor of your camera you shouldnt need anything longer.
Matt
a few months back you were fine shooting with a 1D - didn't need any more...
classic 1d is a beaut. gives better colour than the later ones...
maybe if you didn't turn the saturation to +59 you would like the colour from your current machine...
Maybe if you didnt spot colour everything you would have a more informed opinion.
oooooh - look who has got himself an "informed opinion"
slap my wrist
colour doesnt matter in weddings... you only take photos of pale people wearing white or is that just "your style" :yawn:
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff