Now the stupid questions start!
Discussion
Having finally gotten my 20d i spent most of yesterday trying to work out how to use it. I think my young daughter and two cats are pretty fed up of being test subjects by now 
I've been very motivated to get practising after some of the awesome shots in the "best photo's of 2004" thread.
Lense wise, I ended up going for the EF-S 17-85 IS USM, which to my eye at least is giving fantastically sharp images, depsite some luke warm reviews on the web.
So my first 2 questions are:
1. What is the best tele lense for motorsport and wildlife work to complement my 17-85 ?
I've been checking out articles on dpreview etc and it seems that the one i had my eye on, the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, gives very soft images above 200mm and is slow to focus. Is it worth the extra cash going for something like the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, which gets rave reviews? Or even go the whole hog and get one of the L series.
2. Will a beginner like myself benefit from using filters, specifically polarizing ones, or can all these type of effects now be done just as well in photoshop?
I've been very motivated to get practising after some of the awesome shots in the "best photo's of 2004" thread.
Lense wise, I ended up going for the EF-S 17-85 IS USM, which to my eye at least is giving fantastically sharp images, depsite some luke warm reviews on the web.
So my first 2 questions are:
1. What is the best tele lense for motorsport and wildlife work to complement my 17-85 ?
I've been checking out articles on dpreview etc and it seems that the one i had my eye on, the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, gives very soft images above 200mm and is slow to focus. Is it worth the extra cash going for something like the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, which gets rave reviews? Or even go the whole hog and get one of the L series.
2. Will a beginner like myself benefit from using filters, specifically polarizing ones, or can all these type of effects now be done just as well in photoshop?
I dont know what kind of budget you are on, but a few people here, myself included, have the 100-400IS L. I got mine a couple of weeks ago and Im starting to get some good results with it. Ill post some up when i get home. Im sure Martin will be along with some excellent examples for you at some point today aswell, and Stuart has got some great photos with this lens at www.pbase.com/srider
Hope this helps
Matt
Hope this helps
Matt
To answer 2
I would caution beginners to go slowly with filters
However the two you should consider for general colour work are likely to be a polariser (circular for autofocus systems) and a graduated. These will give you control over landscapes. Of course if you're not intending to do much landscape they'd be mostly a waste of money!
Undoubtedly you should learn what you can do once you've catured an image, but a good original image will be a most helpful starting point and better than trying to do a Bodgett & Scarper makeover after the event!
Black and white - well there's nothing better than a red filter
I would caution beginners to go slowly with filters
However the two you should consider for general colour work are likely to be a polariser (circular for autofocus systems) and a graduated. These will give you control over landscapes. Of course if you're not intending to do much landscape they'd be mostly a waste of money!
Undoubtedly you should learn what you can do once you've catured an image, but a good original image will be a most helpful starting point and better than trying to do a Bodgett & Scarper makeover after the event!
Black and white - well there's nothing better than a red filter
Hi guys,
For motorsport stuff I use a Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro - it came in at £160 but it seems a good lense. It doesn't focus as fast as my 18-70mm Nikkor DX lens in low light, but then its half the price. The pictures seem pretty good though.
Filters - as mentioned, a red filter on black and white gives a lovely effect. I second the caution of going slowly - and don't bother with special effects filters too much - I have a pile of filters for the only ones I use are:
Diffuser (for portraits - gives a nice soft focus)
Warmup (gives ladies a nice tan!)
ND Grad (drops the contrast of a chosen area of the shot, thus allowing you to capture detail in the whole scene
Polariser (linear, as I didn't realise there were two types. It works well though, and I focus manually for landscapes anyway so not bothered)
Red - as mentioned, for landscapes - turns the sky really dark and the clouds bright white!
For motorsport stuff I use a Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro - it came in at £160 but it seems a good lense. It doesn't focus as fast as my 18-70mm Nikkor DX lens in low light, but then its half the price. The pictures seem pretty good though.
Filters - as mentioned, a red filter on black and white gives a lovely effect. I second the caution of going slowly - and don't bother with special effects filters too much - I have a pile of filters for the only ones I use are:
Diffuser (for portraits - gives a nice soft focus)
Warmup (gives ladies a nice tan!)
ND Grad (drops the contrast of a chosen area of the shot, thus allowing you to capture detail in the whole scene
Polariser (linear, as I didn't realise there were two types. It works well though, and I focus manually for landscapes anyway so not bothered)
Red - as mentioned, for landscapes - turns the sky really dark and the clouds bright white!
gravymaster said:
I dont know what kind of budget you are on, but a few people here, myself included, have the 100-400IS L. I got mine a couple of weeks ago and Im starting to get some good results with it. Ill post some up when i get home. Im sure Martin will be along with some excellent examples for you at some point today aswell, and Stuart has got some great photos with this lens at www.pbase.com/srider
Hope this helps
Matt
Hi Gravy
I've seen your work on other threads and it's fantastic. What other lenses do you use?
Budget wise, whatever it takes really. I figure that if i get the best now then it should last me years, as opposed to buying something that i'll want to replace at a later date. The lenses i've looked at vary from about £400 to £1200.
My only concern with the L lenses is size and weight, as i will take it travelling a lot.....
Congrats on the new camera 
Filter wise, apart from a polariser, I think the rest can be done in photoshop afterwards...which allows you the option of keep in the original image in full colour and decide whether an adjusted picture improves it....for example, I'd never use a soft focus filter on a camera, as once its been made soft, you can't make it sharp again in the computer afterwards, but you can make a sharp image soft in the machine.
Lens wise, the 100-400 (£1099) is a preferred lens for motorsport, if you're not willing to spend thousands on the very very best stuff, which I guess most of us couldn't justify.
Another top lens is the 70-200 2.8L IS (£1370), and add on a 1.4 teleconverter (£239), which will give you a 280mm f4, which when multiplied by 1.6 gives you a 35mm equivalent of a 450mm f4....yum yum.
LB
Edited to add: You just get used to the weight...simple as that. It s worth it, for the quality of pictures.
>> Edited by luca brazzi on Monday 17th January 10:42
Filter wise, apart from a polariser, I think the rest can be done in photoshop afterwards...which allows you the option of keep in the original image in full colour and decide whether an adjusted picture improves it....for example, I'd never use a soft focus filter on a camera, as once its been made soft, you can't make it sharp again in the computer afterwards, but you can make a sharp image soft in the machine.
Lens wise, the 100-400 (£1099) is a preferred lens for motorsport, if you're not willing to spend thousands on the very very best stuff, which I guess most of us couldn't justify.
Another top lens is the 70-200 2.8L IS (£1370), and add on a 1.4 teleconverter (£239), which will give you a 280mm f4, which when multiplied by 1.6 gives you a 35mm equivalent of a 450mm f4....yum yum.
LB
Edited to add: You just get used to the weight...simple as that. It s worth it, for the quality of pictures.
>> Edited by luca brazzi on Monday 17th January 10:42
luca brazzi said:
Congrats on the new camera
Filter wise, apart from a polariser, I think the rest can be done in photoshop afterwards...which allows you the option of keep in the original image in full colour and decide whether an adjusted picture improves it....for example, I'd never use a soft focus filter on a camera, as once its been made soft, you can't make it sharp again in the computer afterwards, but you can make a sharp image soft in the machine.
Lens wise, the 100-400 (£1099) is a preferred lens for motorsport, if you're not willing to spend thousands on the very very best stuff, which I guess most of us couldn't justify.
Another top lens is the 70-200 2.8L IS (£1370), and add on a 1.4 teleconverter (£239), which will give you a 280mm f4, which when multiplied by 1.6 gives you a 35mm equivalent of a 450mm f4....yum yum.
LB
Edited to add: You just get used to the weight...simple as that. It s worth it, for the quality of pictures.
>> Edited by luca brazzi on Monday 17th January 10:42
Cheers Luca
The 70-200 2.8L sounds excellent......so next question. Would you take the risk of buying 2nd hand off ebay? It's £1199 at 7dayshop.com......tempting
I think srider is selling a 100-400 but i might be wrong...
Here are some samples:
The other lens ive got is the 28-135IS. Some people think its crap but I havent had any problems with it. Sure its not an L lens, but its price and versitiality make it an excellent choice when starting out. I think that Phil Brett guy has got one too and is happy with it...
The 70-200 is awesome, but its really expensive and it just doenst have the reach for what i want. Infact im gonna get the 1.4x for the 100-400 when i can afford it for more kick, and im also after the 17-40mm L.
Re the weight. You get used to it, and just use a monopod to support it when you get tired. Also a lowepro bag (Ive got the mini trekker like ehasler IIRC) which makes it easy to carry.
Here are some samples:
The other lens ive got is the 28-135IS. Some people think its crap but I havent had any problems with it. Sure its not an L lens, but its price and versitiality make it an excellent choice when starting out. I think that Phil Brett guy has got one too and is happy with it...
The 70-200 is awesome, but its really expensive and it just doenst have the reach for what i want. Infact im gonna get the 1.4x for the 100-400 when i can afford it for more kick, and im also after the 17-40mm L.
Re the weight. You get used to it, and just use a monopod to support it when you get tired. Also a lowepro bag (Ive got the mini trekker like ehasler IIRC) which makes it easy to carry.
Tricky one.....can't advise on that. With new, upon examination, if there's a fault, you can swap it. 2nd hand isn't so simple.
To be honest, its a rarity for either of those L lenses to be sold. I'd get new one (well....I did get a new one
)
Let us know.
PS Remember that the 100-400 does give twice the reach of the 200, and which make for much tighter shots than the smaller lens.....see if you can try both out, to see how big a zoom you need. You don't want to make a mistake with that kind of investment.
LB
To be honest, its a rarity for either of those L lenses to be sold. I'd get new one (well....I did get a new one
) Let us know.
PS Remember that the 100-400 does give twice the reach of the 200, and which make for much tighter shots than the smaller lens.....see if you can try both out, to see how big a zoom you need. You don't want to make a mistake with that kind of investment.
LB
I was right though!! gravymaster said:I've found that a range of 300-600 is ideal for motorsport, so including the 1.6x crop factor of the 20D, the 100-400 would be a good choice.
The other lens ive got is the 28-135IS. Some people think its crap but I havent had any problems with it. Sure its not an L lens, but its price and versitiality make it an excellent choice when starting out. I think that Phil Brett guy has got one too and is happy with it...
The 70-200 is awesome, but its really expensive and it just doenst have the reach for what i want. Infact im gonna get the 1.4x for the 100-400 when i can afford it for more kick, and im also after the 17-40mm L.
Re the weight. You get used to it, and just use a monopod to support it when you get tired. Also a lowepro bag (Ive got the mini trekker like ehasler IIRC) which makes it easy to carry.
The 70-200 is a great lens too, but I think it wouldn't quite be long enough, and if you're spending that much money on a lens, you want it to be right for what you want it for!
They are quite heavy, but Matt is right and you do get used to it. It is well worth getting a backpack bag to carry it in though, as it can get quite tiring carrying it around slung over a shoulder.
I've also got the 28-135 IS, and while it is probably my cheapest lens, it's also the one that's on the camera the most, and I've used it to take the majority of my best photos.
stuh said:
Thanks for all the input folks.
I'm now completely uncertain about which lenses to go for. I quite like the idea of a trip to NY though!....will the warranties still be good in the UK?
I might be able to get the wide-angle lens as well then.....
I don't think Canon do world-wide warranties any more, so you might need to check this out before you fly off to NY.
Mind you it didn't stop me spending £400 odd on a camera when I was there in May. I've since upgraded to a D70 now though!
Stuh,
From what you've said, im pretty convinced that the 100-400L is what you need, after all, your current lens covers most of the short end of the 70-200. If you get the 100-400L you have a range of 17-400mm only missing out 85-100.
At this stage in the game its all about versitaility I think. Get the 100-400 and youve got enough reach to capture some great wildlife and motorsport. Get the 70-200 and you will almost certainly be frustrated by the lack of zoom when you get to a track or nature reserve. Its also not uncommon for people to use the 100-400 with an extender for motorsport, which just goes to show the amount of zoom you really need. The 70-200 2.8IS L is also more expensive.
To make up your mind, take your camera into a canon main dealer and try them, then you can see the photos when you get home.
Matt
From what you've said, im pretty convinced that the 100-400L is what you need, after all, your current lens covers most of the short end of the 70-200. If you get the 100-400L you have a range of 17-400mm only missing out 85-100.
At this stage in the game its all about versitaility I think. Get the 100-400 and youve got enough reach to capture some great wildlife and motorsport. Get the 70-200 and you will almost certainly be frustrated by the lack of zoom when you get to a track or nature reserve. Its also not uncommon for people to use the 100-400 with an extender for motorsport, which just goes to show the amount of zoom you really need. The 70-200 2.8IS L is also more expensive.
To make up your mind, take your camera into a canon main dealer and try them, then you can see the photos when you get home.
Matt
gravymaster said:
Stuh,
From what you've said, im pretty convinced that the 100-400L is what you need, after all, your current lens covers most of the short end of the 70-200. If you get the 100-400L you have a range of 17-400mm only missing out 85-100.
At this stage in the game its all about versitaility I think. Get the 100-400 and youve got enough reach to capture some great wildlife and motorsport. Get the 70-200 and you will almost certainly be frustrated by the lack of zoom when you get to a track or nature reserve. Its also not uncommon for people to use the 100-400 with an extender for motorsport, which just goes to show the amount of zoom you really need. The 70-200 2.8IS L is also more expensive.
To make up your mind, take your camera into a canon main dealer and try them, then you can see the photos when you get home.
Matt
Sounds like the 100-400L is the lens of choice then? I'm in the Sabi Sands game reserve in a few weeks and i guess that would be just the ticket!
I'm assuming the 28-135 that keeps getting mentioned is the Canon 28-135 f3.5/5.6 IS USM ?
ehasler said:
I've found that a range of 300-600 is ideal for motorsport, so including the 1.6x crop factor of the 20D, the 100-400 would be a good choice.
The 70-200 is a great lens too, but I think it wouldn't quite be long enough, and if you're spending that much money on a lens, you want it to be right for what you want it for!
They are quite heavy, but Matt is right and you do get used to it. It is well worth getting a backpack bag to carry it in though, as it can get quite tiring carrying it around slung over a shoulder.
I've also got the 28-135 IS, and while it is probably my cheapest lens, it's also the one that's on the camera the most, and I've used it to take the majority of my best photos.
I second every word of the above, especialy the bit about the 28-135 IS being on the camera for most of the time.
( I've got the Canon 100-400 IS, the Canon 28-135 IS and a Sigma 12-24 DG)
Martin.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff