Long lenses

[Stumpy 256]

What do you guys use/ rate? (I have a 20D) I would love the Canon L series 300mm f2.8 IS but i haven't got enough kidneys to sell. Anyone have any experience of the "Bigma" 50-500 or any other long lenses that are a bit more reasonable?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[vdschoor 0]

Depending on what you want to shoot.. I have the Canon 70-200 F4 L which i am REALLY happy with. If you are looking for an even longer lens, i can't really give you any advice, other than you can't go wrong with Canon L glass..

Iwan

[Stumpy 256]

I was thinking along the lines of a 300 in old money so the 70 – 200 would probably do me pretty well I guess. Do you feel limited by the f4? This lens seems pretty reasonable on price as well.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[jmidgley 0]

Interested in responses to this Q too; I've been thinking about something in the 300mm range.

I've sort of narrowed it down to:

70-200mm f4 L - universally well regarded, can take a 1.4TC for the loss of a stop, bit big and heavy and white.

70-300mm f4-f5.6 IS - optics seem to be well regarded, build quality less so, image stabilisation offers a 3 stop advantage when handheld (but lower shutter speeds won't stop action like they do camera shake!), inconspicuous. Slower autofocus than 70-200.

300mm f4 IS - prime, sharp as a tack, fast AF, image stabilisation, takes 1.4TC, twice the price of the two above and SCREAMS the fact at anyone who looks at it, hence poor spouse-acceptance rating...

Any gear-heads got any of these?

John

[PhreeZone 15]

There is also a 100-300mm 4.5-5.6 that seems to recieve fairly decent reviews and its a fairly cheap lens at under $250 new to get the ring USM with Full time Manual. FM.com gives it a 7.1 on their scale. http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=17&cpage=2&perpage=15&cat=27

Its not near the quality of L glass, but then again its not near the price either so its easier to sneak into the house

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[jmidgley 0]

Quote

(but lower shutter speeds won't stop action like they do camera shake!)

Sorry, I knew what I meant when I typed that, but it's nonsense. I meant something like 'the lower shutter speeds allowed by IS won't stop action'.

Regards
John

[namgrunt 0]

I use the SIGMA 50/500 and yes it is big.Looked at nikons 80/400 vy but the price differance 1600 nikon ver the 900 for the sigma made the choice for me.
The sigma is heavu but very dooable .i use it on my nikon d200 and it wooks great. i have gotten pics of the jumpers standing outside the door and they were at 14500.yea its grainey buy at 5000 feet you can see who is who. But the lens is really for that last 200 feet of landing. i like to get the expression of complete concentration on the faces of jumpers as they land.

some say the sigma in auto focus is slow..I have had no problem with this.I hand hold all my pics without problems and shoot at ISO 200 ,shutter at 1000 auto focus is set on SPOT 6mm,and arpiture is set on auto...yea it takes practice but wow the pics are great.with the 500mm you do not have to be all that close to get face/chest/hands

only negitive is it takes 87mm filters..yes the lens is big.I discarded the sigma handle .

for close up work I use the sigma 10/20 and all I can say is wow..no fish eye effect and it is fast and sharp.

put a 2x extender on the bigma and read aircraft noumbers at 14500.

I have shoped around and found best price,in stock and fast shipping from a store called COMPETITIVE CAMERAS in dallis tx.

check out some pics on my web sight
www.dzmemories.com

bob rader

59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT
LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI)
www.dzmemories.com

[Stumpy 256]

Thanks for that - i really like the idea of that lens but thats an awful big lump to carry around and realistically i don't think i would use the longest 200mm of it enough to make it a good buy. Will keep it in mind for when i have the extra cash though! I got the sigma 18-50 as a standard carry around lens and think its great so far, light but good quality, if a little noisier and slower than L-series on autofocus.
Coming to the conclusion that my next buys are going to be:
Canon L 70-200 f4
Sigma 15mm
and save up for the 300mm f2.8!

But thanks to those of you who responded!

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[The111 0]

Forgive my ignorance... what would you use a lens like this for in freefall?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Stumpy 256]

I wouldn't!! Landing shots and stuff.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[PhreeZone 15]

You could doo cool things like compressing the DOF on some shots and flying further away to get some unique shots.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[jmidgley 0]

Would I need to upgrade the dot on my goggles?

John

[LukeH 0]

A dot on the goggles works reasonably well when using wide angle lenses and flying close to the subject. Misalignment of a few degrees in this type of use generally isn't noticed.

However if you put a longer lens, say 50mm (which is 80mm when you take a 1.6 crop factor into account) you have to fly much further away and therefore be much more precise with your aiming. The required accuracy would be quite difficult to achieve with a dot on the goggles, you would be better off with a Newton Cross or Concentric Ring sight.

[lummy 4]

I'll second the 100-300.

I Have one of these and have been very impressed with the quality and speed of the lens. I compared it to a 75-300 IS (which I've since sold) and the IS lens just couldn't compete with quick action shots.

The only lenses that I've seen which are better (again, IMO) are the L lenses. the 70-200 4L is supposed to be a great deal for the money, but you can find a non IS 2.8l for under $900 on ebay if you're patient.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1