PDA

View Full Version : What's the best Canon lens/es to take great tennis shots with?


bad_angel_109
Oct 20th, 2009, 06:34 AM
hopefully i'll get a few helpful replies and this thread won't get moved. i want canon lenses only coz i've got a canon dsrl (it arrives tomorrow, my mum bought it for me) and i've been researching on the internet a lot, reading reviews, blogs, hands on reviews and video reviews, etc. this is gonna be a REALLY LONG post.

i'll be going to the extremely hot and crowed AO next year. i'll prob go (almost) everyday again like i did this year.

some essential information that might help u help me:
* my camera will be, when it arrives is a Canon EOS 7D (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=19356)
* i think she bought a kit, instead of buying the body and lens/es separately (so i have no idea what kit lens it is til tomorrow)
* i prefer to really have only one good lens. as i'll most likely be on the outside courts unless one of my faves (or a good match up that im interested in) is playing on hisense/RLA. if anything i'll prob go to an azarenka (or maybe even safina) match if its on hisense/RLA and its an interesting match up.
* i heard and read that u cant get in the AO if ur lens exceeds 200mmm. so yeah...crap if im gonna be in RLA/hisense.
* im thinking of buying a UV filter but read that theres already a filter in most dsrl cameras and that it "blurs" the image
* i'd most likely buy a lens hood (if the lens i chose doesnt have one included)
* im willing to spend up to $1700 on an extremely good lens. preferably a canon L series lens or something thats equivalent to one. or a prime lens (whatever that is)
* i want IS, but some posters (not here) have said that IS isnt "necessary" when taking pics of sports/fast moving objects
* i also want a flexible lens to take portraits, sports (tennis), special ocassions (weddings, bdays, etc) and animals, etc.

these are some of the lenses i've researched and are considering (all canon):
24-70mm
24-105mm
15-85mm
70-200mm
17-55mm

there are a few more but i cant remember lol. if ur using a great lens that u think would suit my camera and the areas i'd like to take pics with, plz post what lens ur using.

btw, im a complete NOVICE when it comes to dsrl cameras. bad idea to buy a semi-pro camera when im a beginner? i think so too! :p

so any help would be much appreciated, tnx in advance :) and if there's any other info that u need to make a suggestion, plz ask and i'll answer in hope i'll buy a lens. plus i'll prob get a small-medium sized camera bag (most likely low-pro unless i find something better).

p.s im leaving out the "royal blue" colour so its easier to read this post lol.

cellophane
Oct 20th, 2009, 02:20 PM
Out of all the lenses you listed, only the 70-200 would be okay, and that is if you are relatively close to the action on the outside courts. While you are using it on the 7D and I am assuming you are going to be quite close to the action, it still *might* be short.

Otherwise, you might consider buying longer lenses like the 100-400L (if you are shooting in daylight only, and I'm not sure how good the AF is on that lens) or the 300mm F4 prime (again if you are shooting in daylight), but that's much less flexible. Another idea is the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 lens (it will cost you around 1500 used), but again I am not sure how easy it is to find a good copy of that lens, and AF might not be best.

But yeah, I think you should find out if you can bring a longer lens to AO, because all of these are big lenses and longer than 200mm. You might be okay with 200mm, but I think you need to know how close to the action you are going to be able to get. If you are close enough, 200mm will probably be good enough.

Rix643
Oct 20th, 2009, 06:06 PM
Hi. First of all congratulations on your camera. It's a fine piece of equipment which can make excellent pictures in combination with the rihgt use and right glass. BTW, it is dSLR (digital single lens reflex). If it is a kit it will come with either the EF-S 18-135 or the EF-S 15-85. Neither will be sufficient.

Now about the choice of lens.
If it is true about the AO not allowing lenses bigger then 200mm, then your choices are limited, and I have to agree with cellophane: of all your options you mentioned, only the 70-200mm will do. Canon have 4 versions of that lens, IS or non-IS, f/2.8 or f/4.0. All of them are extremely good and highly recommended. Also, all 4 of them will come equipped with hoods, and all 4 of them are white: you WILL get noticed..
The most versatile version by far is the 2.8 IS version. It has it all: a wide aperture, image stabilization and a shitload of weight to carry around....
Will you be shooting mainly sport and you want to freeze the motion, you will be shooting with short shutter times. These short times make IS kind of obsolete, but will still give you a calmer picture in your viewfinder (although it will also gives you a bit of an unwanted trailing effect). The non-IS can be considered for sports photography (it is also my choice of lens for tennis matches) or for portraits when used on a sturdy tripod. The choice between f/2.8 or f/4.0 is whether you will use the lens in bad light or not. Are you planning to use the lens only outdoors and in broad daylight, than a f/4.0 will do. Will you use it indoors or at night sessions (esp. RLA!) you need f/2.8. Remember, you can't use flash, so you'll be needing as much light as possible.

As I more or less stated, I'm a Canon-shooter myself. I just came back from Linz where I took a couple of shots of which some I posted here. You can find it here: http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=393543
I used a 30D and mainly a 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lens. I also carried a 16-35mm f/2.8, a 28-70mm f/2.8 and a 2x converter, but at times I wished I had the 85mm f/1.8 or the 135mm f2.0: the light was that bad...
Lengthwise, a 70-200 will get you close enough to the action. At times I even had to step back to a more wide-angle lens to get more of the action. The 7D is like the 30D equipped with an APS-C type sensor which give you, compared to a full frame sensor as in a 1Ds or 5D, an extra 1.6 digital zoom factor, so at 200mm the lens will give the same picture as a 320mm at a full-frame body and at 70mm it is like 112mm which can be too long, especially with doubles matches. I only used my extender a couple of times when I wanted to get closer across the entire court lengthwise. As an example, post #145 in my thread is with, #146 is without extender. Both pictures were cropped and resized to 480x640.
None of the pros I saw were using lenses bigger then 400mm. Probably also because bigger lenses come with max. apertures of f/4.0 and up. Most of them used 70-200mm, occasionally in addition with 200mm f/2.0, 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8 primes, all of these are waayy above your (and mine :sad:) budget. BTW, primes are lenses with a single focus range i.e. non-zooms.

I hope you got some more info. Don't hesitate to ask if you need more.

Hmmm, also a long post, and a serious one in GM. Now that's a first for me........ :D

bad_angel_109
Oct 21st, 2009, 07:25 AM
Out of all the lenses you listed, only the 70-200 would be okay, and that is if you are relatively close to the action on the outside courts. While you are using it on the 7D and I am assuming you are going to be quite close to the action, it still *might* be short.

...

But yeah, I think you should find out if you can bring a longer lens to AO, because all of these are big lenses and longer than 200mm. You might be okay with 200mm, but I think you need to know how close to the action you are going to be able to get. If you are close enough, 200mm will probably be good enough.im gonna try and get as close as possible (unless im in RLA/hisense then i cant really do much about it).

yesterday i read up on the terms and conditions about the lenses. it cant be longer than 200mm, which mine is exactly 200mm, so hopefully i wont be refused entry. do u think the 70-200mm would compliment the 80-200mm? or are they practically the same?

i took photos 'til the battery died. but i cant charge it since it was bought over it japan (and i live in australia), i dont have the proper charger adapter thing - power points are different. now im thinking whether i should spend the extra money to buy another charger. i also need to buy a lens hood, it didnt come with one :(

has anyone had any experience with UV filters? are they good/bad/waste of money? also does anyone know how to clean their lens? there are dust particals from when i was outside in the winds taking pics. i need a cloth or something but i dont want to ruin my lens. my local camera store (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproductcategory/canon-slr-lenses--2074819.html) doesnt have many choices for canon lenses.

drake3781
Oct 21st, 2009, 08:14 AM
I have no idea but there might be an air spray to clean with, which is what is used on computers.

Was anybody on this forum the guys who were at the Cirstea match at Cincinnati, taking a lot of pics of her? With I guess some nice equipment. You said you were from Chicago.

Nikkiri
Oct 21st, 2009, 08:27 AM
Oh the lens can't be longer than 200mm :( mine is 75-300mm guess I better not risk taking it.

Rix643
Oct 21st, 2009, 08:54 AM
If you refer to the 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II (please, for future references, also include the f number and a possible mark when you refer to lenses); any 70-200L would be a replacement giving a much better image quality. They are definitely not the same. My advice is: buy a 70-200mm and sell the other. You could be referring to the ancient 80-200mm 2.8L. In that case don't upgrade..
BTW, I read the conditions as well, it stated that you can't bring video cameras & handy-cams. Good luck getting your 7D in, as it also functions as a video-camera. Let me know if you succeeded. For me it might be just the difference between buying a 1Dmk3 or a 1Dmk4...
A tip: buying an extender would increase your reach and you would still meet the tournaments requirements. Mind you, Canon extenders only fit the white L-series telelenses (zoom and primes). Other brands (Sigma, Tamron) aren't good.

You defintely should buy a charger. You can't take pictures with flat batteries ;).
There are good third-party alternatives. Search the Net to find one.

Use of UV(protect)-filters: don't, unless you're high up in the mountains or really need to give your front element some extra protection. In case of some lenses like the 16-35mm 2.8L filters are also needed for weather-sealing.

Concerning cleaning lenses There's no really that much difference between Nikkor, Minolta, Pentax or Canon lenses. For lens cleaning I use a lens pen or a micro fiber cloth. DON'T use paper towels or anything else containing cellulose: it WILL damage your lens.
Look here for examples: http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category523_1.htm

Now I also have a question. In your first post you mentioned a budget of $1700. Are these Australian dollars? In this case your choices are somewhat limietd to the 70-200mm f/4.0 lenses. I personally would choose a non-IS + 1.4x extender, but you might opt for the IS version (Aus$ 1799,-).

cellophane
Oct 21st, 2009, 03:18 PM
Oh the lens can't be longer than 200mm :( mine is 75-300mm guess I better not risk taking it.

I'm not sure why they limit you to 200mm, but if it's because of size (I'm assuming it is), 75-300mm is smaller than any of the 200mm lens, so maybe they own't have a problem with it because it's a small lens. :)

cellophane
Oct 21st, 2009, 03:25 PM
yesterday i read up on the terms and conditions about the lenses. it cant be longer than 200mm, which mine is exactly 200mm, so hopefully i wont be refused entry. do u think the 70-200mm would compliment the 80-200mm? or are they practically the same?

Which 80-200 is it? Is it the 80-200 2.8 L or the other lens Rix was referring to?

With your budget, you can get the 70-200 2.8 L with IS (Image Stabilization) but whether you need it or not depends on how much low light shooting (and what kind) you'll be doing.



i took photos 'til the battery died. but i cant charge it since it was bought over it japan (and i live in australia), i dont have the proper charger adapter thing - power points are different. now im thinking whether i should spend the extra money to buy another charger. i also need to buy a lens hood, it didnt come with one :(

Why not just buy an adapter for your charger?

has anyone had any experience with UV filters? are they good/bad/waste of money? also does anyone know how to clean their lens? there are dust particals from when i was outside in the winds taking pics. i need a cloth or something but i dont want to ruin my lens. my local camera store (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproductcategory/canon-slr-lenses--2074819.html) doesnt have many choices for canon lenses.

Just buy a Giotto's lens cleaning kit... it shouldn't cost too much (not 40 dollars or anything like that)... it has a cleaning cloth, solution and brush.

pov
Oct 21st, 2009, 03:25 PM
I'm not sure why they limit you to 200mm, but if it's because of size (I'm assuming it is), 75-300mm is smaller than any of the 200mm lens, so maybe they own't have a problem with it because it's a small lens. :)
If it's like many events, the restriction is because they don't want the general public getting better (higher resolution and image quality) photos than the approved photographers. So it's not about the physical size of the lens.

cellophane
Oct 21st, 2009, 03:31 PM
If it's like many events, the restriction is because they don't want the general public getting better (higher resolution and image quality) photos than the approved photographers. So it's not about the physical size of the lens.


Not sure why that would be a concern?

Nikkiri
Oct 21st, 2009, 03:35 PM
I'm not sure why they limit you to 200mm, but if it's because of size (I'm assuming it is), 75-300mm is smaller than any of the 200mm lens, so maybe they own't have a problem with it because it's a small lens. :)

Oh yeah I thought thay my lens really isn't that big.. but as you can see I have no idea at all :lol: thanks :)

pov
Oct 21st, 2009, 03:35 PM
Not sure why that would be a concern?
Have you worked much as a pro photographer? I can tell you, it isn't something that pros and the people who are shelling out lost f $$ for images like too much. Do you think that Press/Photo passes were just a quirky thing with no intent behind it? Some events (e.g. NBA) the public can't even get in with a camera or capture-device - period.

Beyond that there are copyright issues which while technically applicable to any quality image, only seem to crop out around A-quality images

Rix643
Oct 21st, 2009, 03:59 PM
With your budget, you can get the 70-200 2.8 L with IS (Image Stabilization) but whether you need it or not depends on how much low light shooting (and what kind) you'll be doing.


In Australia the 2.8 IS starts at around 2100 Aus$...

Just buy a Giotto's lens cleaning kit... it shouldn't cost too much (not 40 dollars or anything like that)... it has a cleaning cloth, solution and brush.

You mean something like this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/373769-REG/Giottos_CL1301_Modular_Lens_Cleaning_Kit.html).
Just don't use blowers (Giotto kits often comes with blowers), as they tend to blow the dust into the lens, even with weather-sealed lenses. I'm not risking any $1500 lens on that..

I'm not sure why they limit you to 200mm, but if it's because of size (I'm assuming it is), 75-300mm is smaller than any of the 200mm lens, so maybe they own't have a problem with it because it's a small lens. :)

If it's like many events, the restriction is because they don't want the general public getting better (higher resolution and image quality) photos than the approved photographers. So it's not about the physical size of the lens.

According to the AO-site (http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/tickets/general.html) it's a security issue. See under "Prohibited items": "For the comfort and safety of patrons and players....".

Have you worked much as a pro photographer? I can tell you, it isn't something that pros and the people who are shelling out lost f $$ for images like too much. Do you think that Press/Photo passes were just a quirky thing with no intent behind it? Some events (e.g. NBA) the public can't even get in with a camera or capture-device - period.

Beyond that there are copyright issues which while technically applicable to any quality image, only seem to crop out around A-quality images

Accept for US-based tournaments I never heard about camera restrictions. But then again, in the States they are very strict about copyright rules.

cellophane
Oct 21st, 2009, 04:40 PM
Have you worked much as a pro photographer? I can tell you, it isn't something that pros and the people who are shelling out lost f $$ for images like too much. Do you think that Press/Photo passes were just a quirky thing with no intent behind it? Some events (e.g. NBA) the public can't even get in with a camera or capture-device - period.

I thought the point of press passes (beyond copyright issues) was to give special access to the pro photographers. They don't want a bunch of people running around taking photos with big equipment in special access areas. Not sure however what it has to do with excluding the Average Joe taking a photo in an area which is *not closed off* to general public. I would however buy that perhaps they don't want anyone to lug a bunch of equipment into the stands, so size is the reason.

Rix643
Oct 21st, 2009, 04:59 PM
Luckily for me it wasn't like that in Linz. I walked around with a big backpack, 4 lenses, 2 bodies, flash and monopod....
People cleared the way for me :D...

bad_angel_109
Oct 22nd, 2009, 08:14 AM
With your budget, you can get the 70-200 2.8 L with IS (Image Stabilization) but
Why not just buy an adapter for your charger?



Just buy a Giotto's lens cleaning kit... it shouldn't cost too much (not 40 dollars or anything like that)... it has a cleaning cloth, solution and brush.
thats what its called! an adapter! i was trying to think of what it was called. thanks.

im trying to avoid using the internet to buy things. i dont have a credit card or even a debit card. and i'd rather go in store, try out the product and ask the sales assistant about the product. but if its something like a lens hood (which i need. does any have any experience with using lens hoods? are they good/bad? do they do anything besides block out the sun?) and a cleaning kit.

so can i use the something cloth/brush(?) that i use to clean the lens to clean the LCD screen? is there anything available like a clear plastic film to stick over the LCD to protect it from scratches and abrasions?

If you refer to the 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II (please, for future references, also include the f number and a possible mark when you refer to lenses); any 70-200L would be a replacement giving a much better image quality. They are definitely not the same. My advice is: buy a 70-200mm and sell the other. You could be referring to the ancient 80-200mm 2.8L. In that case don't upgrade..
BTW, I read the conditions as well, it stated that you can't bring video cameras & handy-cams. Good luck getting your 7D in, as it also functions as a video-camera. Let me know if you succeeded. For me it might be just the difference between buying a 1Dmk3 or a 1Dmk4...
A tip: buying an extender would increase your reach and you would still meet the tournaments requirements. Mind you, Canon extenders only fit the white L-series telelenses (zoom and primes). Other brands (Sigma, Tamron) aren't good.

You defintely should buy a charger. You can't take pictures with flat batteries ;).
There are good third-party alternatives. Search the Net to find one.

Concerning cleaning lenses There's no really that much difference between Nikkor, Minolta, Pentax or Canon lenses. For lens cleaning I use a lens pen or a micro fiber cloth. DON'T use paper towels or anything else containing cellulose: it WILL damage your lens.
Look here for examples: http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category523_1.htm

Now I also have a question. In your first post you mentioned a budget of $1700. Are these Australian dollars? In this case your choices are somewhat limietd to the 70-200mm f/4.0 lenses. I personally would choose a non-IS + 1.4x extender, but you might opt for the IS version (Aus$ 1799,-).i replied to ur previous post but somehow the forum didnt post it, i spent ages typing it so i cbf typing it out a 2nd time lol.

sorry for all the lenses i mentioned i meant the f/2.8 or for the case of the 24-105mm (i think) its only the f/4. i seriously dont know wat my lens f/... is. all it says on the box is "canon EOS 7D EF-S 80-2000mm kit". last night i was looking thro the manuals/booklets included in the box but failed since all the info (save for the english manual) was all in japanese. i couldnt read any of it, bit ironic since the secondary language we learnt in high was japanese :lol: this is my camera, lens (hopefully u can tell me what the f/... is) and the box.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2007/pa2102462.th.jpg (http://img194.imageshack.us/i/pa2102462.jpg/) http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3064/pa2102532.th.jpg (http://img194.imageshack.us/i/pa2102532.jpg/) http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4324/pa2102622.th.jpg (http://img18.imageshack.us/i/pa2102622.jpg/) http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/1566/pa220246.th.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/pa220246.jpg/) http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6594/pa220249.th.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/pa220249.jpg/)

i looked at the spare battery (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/canon-lpe6--2291057_canon-batteries--2326206_.html) and it costs $90 :o now im thinking is it really worth buying a spare battery. the only reason i think i need a spare battery is taking pics at the AO. my battery (included with the camera) wont prob die out whilst im takings pics of other things (landscape, pets/wildlife/portraits, etc.). i'll been using my olympus 8MP, 3x zoom point & shoot camera as well. so do u think its worth me buying an extra ($90) battery only for the tennis?

the sole and only purpose i dont want to buy the 17-200mm is coz its white and i dont wanna be refused entry at the gates. do u have any other suggestions of other lenses (which are black) that i could buy, which would take some pretty good pics? i could probably ask my mum to pay the rest for me like she did for my camera. but she'd most likely say that i've already got a lens and whats the point of buying another more expensive lens? lol. but i certainly hope the guards arent [i]that[/s] educated about camera lenses and which dslr cameras have the ability to record videos :p

u've taken some nice photos. in ur opinion, regardless of money, what do u think is the best overall (for taking photos of tennis) L series lens available?


ok im having trouble searching for camera bags. i want a black one. preferably rectangular or a square sort of bag which is deep. here are a few im interested in: Tamrac Explorer 100 (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/tamrac-explorer-100--2988410_tamrac-cases--2457237_.html) Tamrac T31 DSLR Bag (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/tamrac-t31-dslr-bag--2073812_tamrac-cases--2457237_.html) Kata DPS DC-435 DSLR Bag (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/kata-dps-dc-435-dslr-bag--2192688_kata-inca-bags--2456191_.html) LowePro Edit 100 (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/lowepro-edit-100--1001420_lowepro-gadget-bags--2456183_.html) LowePro Edit 110 (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/lowepro-edit-110--2026365_lowepro-gadget-bags--2456183_.html) LowePro Cirrus 110 (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/lowepro-cirrus-110--2135398_lowepro-gadget-bags--2456183_.html)

im looking towards a bag under $40, but is good enough to hold my camera, cleaning kit (cloth or otherwise), my 18-200mm lens (unless i sell it somehow), another lens and a spare battery. i'd like a zip-opening and padding. (i want it all! lol)i dont want the bag to be too heavy, but realistically its inevitable its gonna be heavy.

im gonna meet up with a mate tomorrow and we're gonna go shopping and im gonna visit my local camera store (and to find an adapter so i can charge my battery and upload photos onto the computer and on here :) also try and find used lens (which are compatible for my camera) instead of buying an expensive new lens.

Rix643
Oct 22nd, 2009, 10:31 AM
There's plenty enough information to find on the Internet about bodies, lenses and accessories, if you're willing to look for it. I give a few examples of sites I most frequently use when looking for info about lenses: www.photozone.de, www.the-digital-picture.com and www.fredmiranda.com. But if you start looking, you'll find there is a lot more on the Net.
Personally, I think this information is much more reliable than that given by a sales person. Remember, a sales person is there to sell, preferably with as much profit as possible. I also prefer to buy at stores, but I already made my decision when I enter it.

I always use lens hoods. Every serious photographer does, in- or outside. It is not just blocking the sun, it also reduces flare caused by any other light source. Secondly, it protects your lens when walking around with your camera strapped around your neck. You'll soon find out how easily the front of your lens will bump into something and then you'll be glad you had your hood on. For protection I prefer hoods over protect filters. Not surprisingly, my lens hoods are the most damaged parts of my equipment...

The LCD is already covered, so don't worry much about that. The cover can easily be removed with the use of a suction cup or something similar. I usually use my shirt to clean it... I try not to use my lens cleaning cloths as the LCD-display tends to get greasy (by touching with your fingers for example) and I don't want to smear that grease on my lenses. You can use a protective film if you want, there are plenty available. I don't, but then again I'm not overly protective about my bodies (you shuld see me clean my sensor.....).

Your lens is an EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. The f-number is often the last digits on the front of any lens. Sometimes it's given as f/4.0, sometimes as 1:4.0. In your case it means it has a maximum aperture of 3.5 at the wide and 5.6 at the tele end.
I don't know much about this lens, excpet for what I read about it on the Net. It seems a reasonable walk-around lens but don't expect too much of it image quality wise or in AF-speed.

I can take around 1000 pictures with one fully charged battery. This should be usually enough for one day, but I'm using a battery grip which can hold 2. I understand the batteries in a 7D have a better performance so it could be enough for you, but only you can tell. It never hurts to have an extra though (I always walk around with 2 spares). Consider buying third-party batteries (made in Japan, not China !!). They have a higher capacity compared to Canon's and are way cheaper while offering the same quality.

The only alternatives I can come up with for the 70-200mms by Canon are those of Sigma and Tamron. Both are black, so the color shouldn't be a problem. Neither of them have a form of IS (called OS with Sigma, VR with Tamron). As being third-party products, it is possible the lenses can have problems in communicating with the body, mostly resulting in AF-problems. Try them before you buy them!
If it is really only the color that's bothering you: use a cover! http://www.adorama.com/LC70200BK.html#
But the list of prohibited items doesn't mention lens color, so I wouldn't worry so much about it.

If there's only one lens I could use, I stick with my 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS.
If I could carry more regardless of costs (and with the additional muscles....), I would choose the followig 4 primes (all L of course): 85mm 1.2, 135mm 2.0, 200mm 2.0 and the 400mm 2.8,with a 1.4 extender tucked away somewhere. At my local store a total of around 15.000 EUR, or around 24.000 AUD........ In combination with a 1D mk 4 of course (I'll keep my f/2.8 zooms as a back-up on a 7D).
First win the lottery........

Bags. Well, it seems there are more camera bags available than there are camera's. Of the ones you mentioned I know only of Tamrac and Lowepro. They're both very good brands, so if you find one of those brands that fits your needs, you shouldn't hesitate. Personally I use Naneu Pro, a brand I came across one time and I stuck with it.


Happy shopping!!!!

bad_angel_109
Oct 22nd, 2009, 12:30 PM
tnx for the sites. i reckon the sales person will sway my opinion tomorrow. im more so looking for a lens hood, adapter, bag and probably a spare battery tomorrow. i think i need to do a bit more research on lenses before i actually commit and buy one.

i thought lens hoods pretty much only blocks out the sun and protects the lens to a degree. since u say the LCD screen's already covered, i might not get a plastic film to cover it. this might sound like a silly question, but i noticed yesterday when i turned my camera on and off, it says "sensor cleaning". do i still have to clean my lens/sensor? or does that just apply to the sensor? is the sensor that reflective mirror thing in the camera? i have no idea lol.

tnx for telling me what my lens is. from the couple of reviews i've read of my lens i also get the impression that its a alright walk-around camera. do u think i should get the 70-200mm? to me, it sounds like a pretty good lens. but im afraid coz of the pros use white lenses with powerful zoom, that they think i have a professional camera (which i do, so im hoping i can get in and get better pics than the pros :p lol) and a professional lens/es that they will refuse my entry. lens cover is pretty expensive.

i'll prob get a lowpro bag tomorrow like i intended. i might get a 3rd party battery like you said (i'll make one its made in japan not china lol). i'll post what i buy tomorrow :) thanks to you and everyone else who posted. i really appreciate your opinion and help. cheers.

bad_angel_109
Oct 22nd, 2009, 01:05 PM
i forgot to ask. if i buy a 3rd party battery, doesnt that mean i have to buy another charger as well? i think both the 3rd party battery and charger will cost more than the actual $90 of the canon battery :scratch: i dunno i'll ask the sales person

Rix643
Oct 22nd, 2009, 01:39 PM
Sensor cleaning applies, you already guessed it, to the sensor. The sensor is that thing you normally can't see, stuck away behind the shutter, and what actually 'catches' the light. In analog camares this function is performed by the film. The sensor consist of millions of microscopic electronic elements. Because of its electric nature it gets a static charge which attract dust. In modern cameras there's a mechanism build in that shakes a protective front layer of the sensor to shake the dust of (at this time the actual sensor is till turned off, not to attract the same dust again). The dust is catched by a small adhesive strip.
That reflective mirror thing in the camera actually IS a mirror. It reflects the light upward to the viewfinder (that's where the 'r' comes from in dSLR). The part behind the lens inside the body is called the mirror house.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera for a better understanding of the dSLR-basics.

Unfortunately, the build-in cleaning mechanism isn't sufficient in keeping your sensor perfectly clean. Eventually you will need to clean it manually and if you browse through your camera's menu, you will find an option for sensor cleaning. When you select this, the mirror will flip up and the shutter will open, thus exposing the sensor (I don't recommend doing this just for fun). At this time you can clean the sensor USING SPECIALIZED PRODUCTS.
On the web there are several dubious cleaning methods going around (one of them is the Scotch-tape method), but I wont recommend any of them. The sensor is the most expensive part of your body and you don't want to damage that. If you're a bit scared to clean it yourself, you can also go to a shop and get it done.
But at this moment it is nothing to worry about. Your camera is brand-new, and with the build-in cleaning function it will take a considerate amount of time until you will notice dust particles on your pictures (mostly when shooting high f-number). How long depends on different factors, the most important being how many times you change lenses. It should be obvious that when you change lenses and expose the interior of your camera, all kinds of dust will creep in. Actually, on time after changing lenses, I suddenly noticed a booklice crawling over my matte screen.....
There are alse certain lenses like the 100-400mm push-pull zoom lens which earned the nickname 'dustpump' for being notorious in collecting dust and transferring it into the mirror house (when reading fora on digital photography I always get the feeling that users of these lenses also become experts in sensor-cleaning....).

A tip: switch off your camera while changing lenses. This will remove the static charge from your sensor.


My third-party battery works fine with the Canon charger, but I use a different type.

bad_angel_109
Oct 23rd, 2009, 04:34 AM
strangely the camera store wasnt open today :scratch: i asked around but no answer. guess i'll have to go back sometime next week. the earlier in the week the better. the weather's finally getting warmer and there's more sunlight.

i did a bit of research on the 70-200mm f/2.8 last night and its prob safe to say im not gonna buy it. all the review by customers who've bought and used the lens for a few months say the lens is great and 'what you get is what you pay for'. which then lead me to think about my camera and lens. camera's expensive, professional and brand-new. so really, i should get quite good, decent pics. but then i thought about my lens, i read (in a very lengthy canon dslr thing on the net) that canon lenses (my lens) which sport the silver/chrome ring at the front are "cheapies" and they're bad quality products. so now im dubious about my camera and lens combo. i have a pretty good camera but a 'not so good' lens (according to this 1 person on the internet lol), that im thinking i'll get so-so photos coz of my lens. i dont know now.

im too scared to clean my sensor, mirror/s and lens. i'll prob send it to canon to get it cleaned in a few yrs time tho it'll prob cost a lot. about cleaning the lens/es, u just need to wipe the outside of the lens right? or do u need to actually disassemble the entire lens to clean it?

im going to see how many photos i can take at the AO qualies nxt year and see how my battery handles it. if it turns out i need to get a spare one i will get the same, but if i find a good 3rd party battery (thats cheaper) i'll buy that instead.

i want a L series lens (besides the fact that its got the best 'glass' available in canon lenses) is the red rim/ring at the front :lol: i think it looks cool. what do u think about using macro lenses to take tennis photos? im just trying to figure out what kind of lens suits my needs (and budget).

thanks for all your help thus far. you seem like you know quite a lot about cameras and lenses. how long have u been shooting for? and besides, tennis, what other things do you take phtos of? e.g. landscape, portraits, widelife, etc. and sorry for asking so many questions. i wasnt joking when i said i was a complete novice.

Keadz
Oct 23rd, 2009, 05:04 AM
Nothing a hood can do that your hand can't replicate...really

I want to get into photography, but it is sooo damn expensive :sad:.

Rix643
Oct 23rd, 2009, 10:55 AM
If I can give you an advice: DON'T buy any other lens right now. First get to know your body and all of the possibilities it has to offer. Start with using the basic modes, learn what exposure settings you have to use, then try the creative modes, ie. the Av, Tv and M-settings. As you stated a few times already you're a novice in this area, give yourself the time to learn. See if all this is your thing, before starting to spend too much money on it. I can guarantee you, even with the most expensive pro equipment, you won't be able to make pro-grade quality pictures.
I disagree with what you've read about the chrome ringed lenses being bad quality. Maybe this was true a couple of years ago (when was this article written?), but nowadays Canon has improved the quality of their entry-level lenses. They might lack fast focussing (USM), wide apertures (low f-numbers) or advanced IS, but optically they've become much better. I give you to think about it: the 7D is Canon's top prosumer (or semi-pro) model. Why would they include a bad lens? If the lens is bad, they only would scare the consumers off in buying more Canon products or go to the competition. Yours is a lens that scratches the edges of excellent image quality, stating "look how good the camera is. Buy an expensive lens to get perfect pictures.". IMHO it makes a perfect learning lens.
On a side note, I also own your lens' little brother, the 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS. There are circumstances I replace my 2200AUD 16-35mm 2.8L with this 160AUD little gem.....

But if your desperate to buy an L-lens for the upcoming AO, I advice the 70-200mm f/4.0L non-IS, which is an excellent lens. Optically and image quality-wise it is as good as its f/2.8 and IS cousins at half or even a third of the price.It will meet your requirements for now. As I understand, you'll do most of your shooting outside with relatively high shutter speeds, so you can do without wide apertures or IS. Rule of thumb is you can take hand-held pictures with shutter speeds as low as 1/focal length secs. without motion blur caused by the photographer. When using support (rest your arm somewhere, using a mono- or tripod) you can go lower.
There are also two more things to consider which may validate the choice for an L-grade lens. First is the build quality. L lenses are build like a tank. They are extremely sturdy. My 70-200 took a 1.5m fall, without any damage at all. Second, there is hardly any depriciation in value. If you decide to sell your lens, you won't lose much on it. For example, I received an offer to sell my 1yr old telezoom at 35 Euro below the price I bought it for...

But all in all I suggest you wait a little longer.

Cleaning the lens: just the outside. You might be able to take it apart, however you will never be able to put it back together again. Period. Just use a dry or at the most a moist cloth, but I tend to keep my lenses away from fluids as much as possible, even with wheather-sealed lenses. You can use a brush the remove bigger particles. Some use blowers or compressed air, I am not in favor of it.

Macro lenses are special lenses for extreme close-ups, less then 0.5 m away. I don't think tennis players would appreciate you coming so close during matches.... :p
To repeat what I said earlier, use your current lens to find out what you need. What are the most common focal ranges, distances, what lightning conditions you take the pictures in, etc. This will significantly narrow down your choices.

I started (reflex) photography 30 years ago. I had an analog Pentax camera (there was no such thing as digital at the time) and a dark room for developing. I primarily shoot sports and human landscapes.

I am glad I can help. I do it also a bit out of selfishness: I like to see good pictures of tournaments I can't attend.. :D


Nothing a hood can do that your hand can't replicate...really
You try to hold 3 kilo of equipment with just one hand while stretching the other more than half a meter to shield off light... You'll be glad you can use a hood and use both hands to support your camera.. ;)

cellophane
Oct 23rd, 2009, 03:57 PM
The 70-200 f4 non-IS L is a good choice for sports pics...it's good quality L glass and won't really be as expensive as the other 70-200s. I'd pass on the 70-200 2.8 non-IS, simply because I'd rather get a good sample of the Sigma 70-200 2.8 (would have to look for one though) for cheaper

Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG HSM (the non-Macro version WITH HSM, which is the equivalent of Canon's USM, NOT the later version with Macro)you can get for roughly the same price as 70-200 f4 L...however there is much sample variation with the Sigma lenses, as well as sometimes focusing issues with Canon bodies, so you really have to be careful and ask for samples / buy from a trustworthy seller with a good return policy. I do know that when you get a good sample of this lens, it's pretty much as good as the 70-200 Canon 2.8 L without IS for a lot less money. In fact, I was going to buy a good sample of this lens used from somebody in Australia a little while back...on fredmiranda.com (it's a camera gear forum - I've bought/sold a lot of used stuff on that site by the way from forum members. The buy/sell section has some good deals) but it didn't happen.

Oh, and lenses which are specifically for macro(I don't mean the 70-200 Sigma Macro HSM, because it's not a TRUE Macro lens... yes I know it says MAcro, but that's only to mean it focuses at reasonably close distances... true macro lenses are primes like Canon 100mm 2.8 or Sigma 150 2.8 ) are not suitable for sports pictures, because they typically focus slowly, so they aren't fast enough for tracking fast subjects.

cellophane
Oct 23rd, 2009, 04:07 PM
Oh, and your 18-200 lens is probably weakest at the long end setting of 200mm, IMO it's going to be decent all-around if you don't want to swap lenses, but not that great if you want to print bigger...

Nikkiri
Oct 23rd, 2009, 04:45 PM
I'm not sure why they limit you to 200mm, but if it's because of size (I'm assuming it is), 75-300mm is smaller than any of the 200mm lens, so maybe they own't have a problem with it because it's a small lens. :)

It says you aren't allowed telephoto camera lenses with a focal strength of greater than 200mm. So I guess my 75-300mm wouldn't be allowed? :sad:

cellophane
Oct 23rd, 2009, 06:13 PM
It says you aren't allowed telephoto camera lenses with a focal strength of greater than 200mm. So I guess my 75-300mm wouldn't be allowed? :sad:

I don't know, but the 75-300 is quite a bit smaller looking than any of the 70-200s, so you might not have a problem...

cellophane
Oct 23rd, 2009, 06:17 PM
As you can see, it's about half the size of the 70-200 IS... don't know which 75-300 you have though... the 3rd one?

http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-Lens-Size-Comparison.jpg

bad_angel_109
Oct 25th, 2009, 05:03 AM
ok i cant really reply to ppl's comments coz atm im using one of those 'put $2 in for 15 mins or so use of internet in a public area in a shopping centre' computers lol. i've got just over 7 mins left coz i let my friend use the computer first coz she said she was jus gonna check her email. me thinking it would be like 2-5 mins tops i let her use it. my internet doesnt wprk properly :( thats why im on one of these things. its not gonna be fixed til monday week or sometime around then.


i forgot to say why im prob not gonna buy a 70-200mm f/2.6 L IS USM (or the non-IS one) is coz of the weight of the lenses. it weighs like 1.5kg! :eek: thats so heavy and im not strong enough to hold a lenses like that, especially for prolonged periods of time like at the AO, lol. if i bought that lenses i'd def buy a tripod or monopod, whichever is better. and ur not allowed to take tripods or monopods into the AO.

but in saying all that ^ i did a bit more research (before my internet stuffed up) and i was considering the 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM. what if i stopped down the apeture(?) to f/2.8 (is that possible on that lens?). would that be just as effective as the f/2.8? im just reading a lot of information on the internet and if it sounds good, i'll consider it.

i found a company selling the 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM for $770AU (plus another $10 for the lens cap and lens hood (and another $25 for postage and handling). but the company is based in hong kong. i dont want to be cynical and biased (not to mentioned stereotypical and prejudice) but wouldnt that mean the lens is made in hong kong/china? i dunno. here's the company (http://www.citiwideonline.com/au/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=5&Itemid=45) i dont think the prices include VAT/GST (http://www.citiwideonline.com/au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=38) [70-200mm f/4 IS USM lens] (http://www.citiwideonline.com/au/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=1055&category_id=98&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1&utm_source=getprice&utm_medium=cpc&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1) the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM is around $1500AU. do u think i should get the f/4 or f/2.8? i dont want to be regretting my decision (if i do buy the f/4) on how i should have paid the extra $600, $700 to get the f/2.8 one instead of settling on the f/4.

here are some things i've read

I want to do sports photography. What lens do I need?
Unfortunately, this answer is going to be somewhat like the previous one. The challenges of sports and other action photography are twofold. First, by its very nature, sports photography tends to involve rapid motion - fast-moving players or cars or whatever. Second, usually thereís some distance between the action and the camera.

Solving the first problem requires lenses which can let in plenty of light, the use of flash or faster film or high ISO settings on a digital camera. Each of these solutions has drawbacks, however. Fast lenses are large, heavy and expensive. Fast film or high ISO settings result in higher grain or noise and thus lower picture quality. And flash may be inadequate to illuminate the subject effectively, particularly if the subject is some distance away.

Solving the second problem basically requires the use of long telephoto lenses. However, most affordable autofocus telephoto lenses are very slow - they donít let in much light. So this amplifies the first problem.

Now obviously there are some cases where these two issues arenít a massive problem. For example, perhaps youíre shooting a basketball game and youíre in the front row. Basketball courts are of a modest size and so you could probably do okay with flash (assuming youíre allowed to use flash - some places wonít let you as it can temporarily blind or distract the players) and you wonít need an incredibly long lens accordingly. Such a situation is a little less challenging than shooting hockey on a big, poorly lit, rink.

Nonetheless, pro photographers rely on fast lenses, and this is the primary stumbling block for amateur photographers on a budget. Fast telephoto lenses, especially fast telephoto zooms, are really expensive. And thereís not much you can do to work around that fact without a lot of compromises. To cover these points further:

Fast lens. Get the fastest (largest aperture) lens you can afford. A 70-200 2.8 lens is great for basketball, for example. A 75-300 4-5.6 is probably not, since even shooting wide open means youíll have slow shutter speeds, which will result in unwanted motion blur.

Telephoto lens. Youíll need a long telephoto zoom unless youíre planning on shooting very close to your subjects. For example, you wonít need a long lens to shoot skateboarders in an urban setting, but you will if youíre covering a football game.

Cropping. You can always make up for a long lens to a certain extent by cropping the picture - trimming off the edges. The problem with this is that enlarging the picture also enlarges the grain in the case of film and lowers the apparent resolution in the case of digital.

Image stabilization. Useful for reducing blurring caused by camera motion, but of no value whatsoever in freezing subject motion.

Flash. Useful both for illuminating the subject and freezing subject motion. Not every venue permits flash usage, however.

Film/ISO speed. Fast film or high ISO settings are needed to keep shutter speeds to a minimum. Once again this involves tradeoffs with picture quality.

Camera with fast focus. A fast pro camera (such as the EOS 1 series) can lock focus surely and accurately and has minimum lag time when the shutter release is pressed. A consumer camera is not going to be as surefooted and decisive, and will make it harder to nail the perfect shot.

Fast lens motor. A Canon ring USM lens can autofocus rapidly, whereas a Canon AFD (arc form drive) lens cannot. A lens with a rapid motor frequently makes the difference between achieving a shot and getting nothing.

To summarize - if you plan on putting a 75-300 4-5.6 consumer lens onto your camera, donít expect photos like those which grace sports magazines. This isnít to say that you canít get satisfactory photographs with such equipment, just that itís challenging to do so. It takes a lot of skill, experience and luck to come up with consistently good results. And you should be operating on the expectation that you will face problems with blurring of the subject and general low sharpness and low contrast if you use an affordable consumer telephoto zoom lens.
__________________________________________________

Most lenses provide sharpest results when used in the middle part of their aperture range. Lenses usually have performance problems when used wide-open. Stopping down helps a great deal, but once the aperture becomes too small then an optical phenomenon known as diffraction comes into play and the quality deteriorates once again. So most lenses work best at around f/8 or f/11 or so.
__________________________________________________

A tiny scratch or chip on the front glass of a lens, alarming as it may look, wonít actually make much difference in image quality under most circumstances since itís far enough from the film or image sensor plane not to be in focus. It can, however, affect lens flare, so itís usually worth filling in the chip with black pen.
__________________________________________________

all TCs degrade image quality somewhat. First, youíre adding a bunch more glass between you and the scene youíre photographing and second, youíre using only part of the centre of your lens. 2x TCs enlarge more of the middle of the lens than the 1.4x TCs, which makes 2x converters worse optically. Now, in the case of a fancy Canon L series lens and a Canon Extender, this optical degradation will be fairly minimal. However, if you take your typical cheap consumer zoom lens and slap a third-party TC on it youíll find that the results will be less than stellar.
_________________________________________________

70-200 4L USM
This lens, the smaller and cheaper sibling of the impressive 70-200 2.8L USM professional lens, is considered a bargain by many EOS users. It costs three times as much as the cheapie lenses but itís sturdy, focusses quickly with a ring USM system with FTM and, most importantly, it has great optical quality. Itís bigger and heavier than the consumer lenses, but if you want something good but canít afford the 2.8L, consider this lens. It doesnít use a huge 77mm filter like the 2.8L - it uses a 67mm filter like the 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM. This is a little unfortunate, has hardly any other Canon lenses have 67mm filters.

70-200 4L IS USM
The image stabilized sibling to the 4L. Visually almost identical, down to the 67mm filter, but much much more expensive than its non-L counterpart. According to some reviewers, one of the sharpest Canon lenses in its whole zoom lens range.

honestly, if i cant afford to get a good, quality L series canon lenses to take fairly good photos with, im then probably going to buy a tamron lens of some sort. has anyone had any experiences with tamron lenses? i've read some mixed reviews about sigma lenses (about 35-65, 35% being 'for' sigma lenses and the 65% being 'against' it).
The only third-party maker of EF-compatible lenses with no major compatibility problems so far is Tamron. Some people have suggested that this is because Tamron have licensed official lens protocol data from Canon, but Canon USAís Chuck Westfall has stated repeatedly in public fora that Canon have never licensed their lens mount protocol to any other manufacturer. So Tamron have either been very lucky or very clever in their reverse-engineering of the Canon lens system. They seem to be a reasonably safe bet right now for compatibility, given their track record, but itís impossible to predict future developments in this regard.
im considering buying these tamron lenses: Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 DI LD, $1,249.95 (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/tamron-sp-af-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-ld--2173345_tamron-slr-lenses--2324896_.html) Tamron AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di-II LD, $749.95 (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/tamron-af17-50mm-f-2-8-di-ii-ld--2109834_tamron-slr-lenses--2324896_.html) Tamron AF55-200mm F/4.5-5.6 Canon, $149.95 (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/tamron-af55-200mm-f-4-5-5-6-canon--2089346_tamron-slr-lenses--2324896_.html) <-- thats the cheapest and it seems ok, i could then possibly use the extra money i didnt spend on buying a more expensive lens to buy a 3rd lens :)


i think these statements really apply to me.
Zoom lenses which extend in length when you alter the focal length are particularly vulnerable to this problem, since air gets sucked in every time you move the lens barrel.

Luckily a little bit of dust inside a lens isnít going to make much difference, so donít worry about it. It may be alarming to see the dust specks when you hold the lens up to a bright light, but itíll cost an awful lot of money to have a camera repairperson dismantle the lens and clean each internal element. And thereís no guarantee that the elements will be properly aligned when he or she gives it back to you. So unless the lens is coated with a dusty grey film of dust you shouldnít have any problems.
____________________________

Push-pulls also tend to suck in a lot of air and therefore dust into the lens when adjusted. However, push-pull lenses can be operated more rapidly, if usually a bit less accurately, than two-touch zooms.
____________________________

Lens hoods come in a number of basic forms. The two types sold by Canon today are tube-shaped hoods and petal-shaped (notched) hoods, made of hard black plastic. The petal-shaped type are sometimes called ďperfectĒ lens hoods and shield the lens more effectively than simple tubes of the same weight. This is because the notches are cut out to match the rectangular shape of the imaging area (think about it).can someone plz explain that to me, i dont get it lol.

but i think this statement applies to me the most as it pretty much (at least imo) is my current situation with my camera and finding the right lens. :awww:
a really heavy lens can strain the lens mount. But itís better to have a great lens on a so-so body than the other way around.

my computer's about to cut off my service (i emailed myself most of the things in quotes so i could just copy and paste it here). i wont be able to reply til monday week, (november 1st) coz that is when the internet repair man will come. im going bak to the camera shop on tuesday with my best mate to buy a camera buy and i found a shop that sells the proper adapter.

last question: what is the nxt 'best' lens (after the 70-200mm f/2.8 [and the f/4] IS [or non-IS] USM) to buy for taking photos of tennis? from what i've learnt the faster the f number the better shutter speed? :confused:

tnx again.

bad_angel_109
Oct 25th, 2009, 05:07 AM
oh and rix, u asked for the article that i've been reading about the "cheapie" lenses. i googled 'best canon lenses' and this was one of the results. its more so of a guide i think. it was written in 2007. Choosing a lens and basic lens categories. (http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html) and there's the rest (which i havent read) Canon EOS Beginners’ FAQ (http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/)

Rix643
Oct 25th, 2009, 10:07 AM
You can't make the lens wider than it is, so you can't step down (actually, it would be stepping up) a f/4.0 lens to f/2.8. There's a reason it is called the maximum aperture....
I took a look at the Hong-Kong based site, and first thing I noticed was the 770 AUD lens is the NON-IS. the IS-version is 1330 AUD.
It sounds very cheap, but not 'impossible' cheap, meaning they might sell original Canon lenses. Original L-grade lenses are always made in Japan, either in Fukushima, Utsunomiya or Oita (but you never can be sure with those Chinese, IMHO :p).

I like the article about lenses for sports photography. It nicely sums up all the things you need to consider when shopping for a lens. There's only one thing I like to point out: you're really going to need an aperure of f/2.8 in the worst of lighting conditions. And even then there are ways to compensate for it, for instance by using higher ISO-values. The latest models of camera's, including your 7D, are capable of making very decent if not not simply excellent, quality pictures at higher ISO-numbers.
Outdoors I'm usually at around f/8, ISO 400 and 1/1000 sec (see some pics in my Savinykh-thread (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=391192)), in Linz I was capable to make some decent pictures indoors at f/5.6, ISO 800 and 1/250 sec at the poorly lit court 1. Your 7D goes to ISO 6400 with an additional H-setting, giving ISO 12800 as maximum, or a whopping 4 more stops. In other words, you could take the same picture at f/5,6, ISO 12800 and a speed of 1/4000 !!! Talking about motion stopping power....
Probably the IQ won't be good at this high setting, but at ISO 3200 probably it will (the 7D uses the same sensor technology as the new 1Dmk4, which goes to ISO 102400 :eek: ). The only disadvantage of this high ISO setting is the file-size getting larger, and probably reducing burst speed and length.
What I'm trying to say, don't hang on on f/2.8 for maximum too much, f/4 will most likely do in 99.9% of the cases. Besides, both the f/2.8 and the f/4.0 have their sweet spots between f/8 and f/11, eventually you'll going to use this range the most.

I have one Tamron lens, a 18-200mm, I use as a general walk-around lens when I don't want to carry much and don't care about IQ. It makes decent pictures, but absolutely not comparable with L-grade lenses. It loses on every aspect (except weight), like contrast, color saturation, sharpness, distortion and CA.
The Tamron 70-200 you mentioned weighs almost as much as a 70-200 2.8 non IS, so why do you consider it, while you state the Canon is too heavy for you? For almost the same amount of money I would definitely choose the Canon f/4.0 IS, no second thought about it.. I'd even prefer the 4.0 non-IS above the Tamron.

Petal-shape hoods deal better with vignetting in comparison with tube-shaped hoods. Vignetting is the effect you can see on some pictures where the image gets darker in corners. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting. Petal-shaped hoods let in more light in those areas.
BTW, this mainly apply with full-frame sensors. With APS-C format sensors, like on your 7D, there is much less vignetting.

Your lens isn't a so-so lens. It's a more-than-average lens. On dpreview it gets a 7 in IQ and value: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/page4.asp
The 2.8 IS gets 8.5 and 7.5.... http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page6.asp
(And no, I wouldn't carry a 600mm lens attached to a 1000D around, holding the combo by the body... But a 7D can handle any 70-200 very well.)

Relation between f-number and speed: for every 1.4x (or square root of 2) lower f-number, you can double your shutter speed or halve you ISO. a picture taken at f/8, 1/1000 and ISO 400 can also be taken at f/5.6, 1/2000, 400 or 5.6/1000/200 or 4/1000/100 or 4/2000/200 etc..
Mathematically: N≤/tS = constant, where N = f-number, t=shutter speed, S is ISO setting.

Rix643
Oct 25th, 2009, 10:15 AM
Thanks for giving the date. I thought so it was an older article. The 18-55 IS and 18-200 were released late 07 and 08 respectively. Canon did some major redesign on the optics, greatly improving the IQ compared to older chrome-ring lenses.

cellophane
Oct 25th, 2009, 08:33 PM
The Tamron 70-200 2.8 isn't a good choice for sports, because of its slow AF. That price you quoted on the Tamron is ridiculous... I'm not sure what prices are like in Australia, but this lens goes for around 700 American dollars new or less, I believe?

The 35-65 Sigma thing about Sigma isn't really true... there are some very good Sigma lenses out there... For example the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is sharper than the Canon equivalent and has better background blur(bokeh)... the quality control however can be extremely poor with Sigma, so that's why you need to be careful. A common problem with Sigma lenses on Canon bodies is they don't focus correctly...

If you want a lighter lens, then any of the f4 versions would be the way to go... I would personally go for the IS version even though it's more expensive. It's reportedly the sharpest of all the 70-200 lenses that Canon makes...and IS would help in low light for things that don't move (it will not help with sports in low light, because all IS does is allow you to take images at slower shutter speeds without blur)

If you don't want to spend money on the 70-200 f4 IS, then I would personally buy the Sigma 70-200 2.8 for the same money as the Canon 70-200 f4 non-IS, because the 2.8 gives you more light gathering capability and allows you to shoot in lower light. And a good sample of the Sigma is as good as the Canon. But as I said, you have to handpick with this lens, because there a lot of duds, and need to test the lens on your body to check if it focuses well and what the sharpness is like. If you want, I can try to find out if the guy who was going to sell me this lens is still selling it... he might be in Melbourne too, so you would have an opportunity to test it for yourself. I would recommend you go with someone who knows about lenses though, since you are just starting out and not buy it on your own. PM me if you want me to ask for you. I believe the Sigma is heavier than the Canon f4, so it might not be a good choice if you want something lightweight. But you could always try it out on your body and see for yourself.

Rix643
Oct 25th, 2009, 08:58 PM
The Sigma is even heavier than it's Canon 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS counterpart: 1370 gram vs. 1310 gram.
I agree, it's a good lens IF you can get a good copy (although the older non-macro variety is better IMO). The problem with Sigma is they rely on reversed engineering to make their lenses. And the older the lens and the newer the body, the more chance you have the combo doesn't work.
If you go for Sigma, you should try it out first.
I also own a 170-500mm and a 100-300 Sigma lens, both are excellent lenses, only not suitable for sports...

cellophane
Oct 25th, 2009, 11:06 PM
The Sigma is even heavier than it's Canon 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS counterpart: 1370 gram vs. 1310 gram.
I agree, it's a good lens IF you can get a good copy (although the older non-macro variety is better IMO). The problem with Sigma is they rely on reversed engineering to make their lenses. And the older the lens and the newer the body, the more chance you have the combo doesn't work.
If you go for Sigma, you should try it out first.
I also own a 170-500mm and a 100-300 Sigma lens, both are excellent lenses, only not suitable for sports...

That's the one I'm talking about, the NON-macro HSM. Its full name is 70-200mm 2.8 APO HSM.... (the HSM is very important) Not to be confused with 70-200mm APO EX DG HSM II Macro (newer version of this lens that's being sold now)... so if you decide to go ahead with that lens, you really need to know what you are buying. You will not be able to find it new, because it's been discontinued (the one they are selling new one is the macro version I just referred to) It's a recent lens so there should not be problems with compatibility with newer bodies... but you absolutely should try it out to see if it focuses correctly on your body and if it's a good sharp sample. As I said,
if you do find a good sample, it's a really good bargain. 70-200 2.8 Canon L non-IS will cost you quite a bit more than the Sigma.

So bad_angel, if you do decide to go for that lens, ask me for more info on how it looks etc... and if you want I can ask the guy who was going to selli it to me if he is from Melbourne or not. You can also probably check out local ads in you area.

I think for you it might just be easier to buy either of the 70-200 f4 Canon L lens and be done with it, if the weight of the lens is your biggest priority . Just be aware that either of these F4 lenses are really good light lenses (allthough 70-200 f4 IS can be used indoors with shooting static subjects) so if you want to shoot with this lens in lower light too, then go for 2.8

Rix643
Oct 26th, 2009, 05:57 AM
Cellophane, I don't agree with your last statement. the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is just one stop. With a 7D this can be compensated with a higher ISO setting without notable loss of IQ.

Don't be too fixed on a f/2.8 lens..
Here's an article on CPN about the pro's and cons of f/2.8 and f/4.0 lenses: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/technical/f28_v_f4_lenses.do#container

cellophane
Oct 26th, 2009, 02:39 PM
It is is just one stop, but f2.8 for using in lower light is better than f4, not only because you can shoot at a faster shutter speed, but because the focusing with a 2.8 lens should be quite a bit faster in low light than with the f4. 7d looks decent at high ISO, but I would prefer to have a cleaner shot than to have to bump up the ISO for an extra stop...

If you are not shooting low light at all, then there I don't think it matters.

03 RuleTheCourt
Oct 26th, 2009, 04:52 PM
if money wasn't an issue i'd certainly recommend the 200 F2 (or the older F1.8 without the IS), i know it's a very expensive FF lens, but by far one of the sharpest and fastest pieces of glass ever produced. The industry standard in sports photography is still the 70/200 F2.8 IS (USM). After that you'll mainly find the FF's (respectively 300mm F2.8 and 400 F2.8)
If you got the money go for the F2.8's, not the F4's, once you end up shooting indoor sports you'll end up regretting the purchase

I had one of these 18/200's F3.5/5.6 from Canon but sold it, i needed to go way to high in ISO during RG and Wimbledon etc, i'm using the 50D with battery grip for this.

Just an extra tip: don't save on glass or slow memory.. you DO want to have the fastest available or your baby (7D) will no where get it's blazing speed it says on the box...:)

cellophane
Oct 26th, 2009, 05:04 PM
There is also the 200mm L 2.8 prime to keep in mind. :) I think it's close to the weight of the 70-200 F4 lenses and is inexpensive but it's less flexible than a zoom obviously...

Rix643
Oct 26th, 2009, 06:38 PM
I agree that you have faster AF with a 2.8 lens, not just in lower light situations. Also, on the 7D there are 19 focal points, 18 of them are f/5.6 cross, but the center is a f/2.8 double cross. So when using a f/2.8 lens and the center focal point, you will have much more accurate focussing. Another advantage of a f/2.8 lens is that the viewfinder will be brighter. This will come handy in low-light.
BTW, I checked my latest pictures, 75% of 2000+ pictures were taken with a aperture wider (lower f-number) than f/4.0. Most of the other were because I was using an extender, or started experimenting with motion blur or DOF (I kinda got bored at the latter days of the tournament; maybe next time I'll bring a TS-lens, might be nice for doubles :p).
I guess there's really no good alternative for a f/2.8 lens or wider when you want to shoot indoors. But then again, I saw images of a 7D on ISO 3200 that looked just as good as my 30D on ISO 800, which I used most of the time...
As 03 said, you could be regretting your purchase of a f/4 when you start shooting indoors, but you could just as well when lugging an almost twice as heavy f/2.8 IS around all day...

BTW 03, can you explain to me why you would need high ISO outside midsummer? Heavy overcast or something like that? Usually there is enough light to shoot at high speed on low ISO with a f-number that's well within the range of the lens you mentioned. If you check the EXIF on my avvie, shot early September, you see it is shot at 1/1000s, ISO 400, f/8. With your lens you could use 1/1000s, ISO 200, f/5.6, quite a low ISO IMHO.
With 18 point f/5.6 cross AF points, his 7D will focus faster and more accurately than your 50D or mine 30D with any lens. And with two DIGIC IV processors it will have no problems reaching his burstrate of 8 fps (on the 1Dmk4 it is good for 10fps). Problem with slow memorycards is that it will take longer to empty the buffer. You don't want the fastest available, you want that what suits your needs. ;)

There is also the 200mm L 2.8 prime to keep in mind. :) I think it's close to the weight of the 70-200 F4 lenses and is inexpensive but it's less flexible than a zoom obviously...
It's 5 grams heavier than the 70-200 f/4 IS :D

03 RuleTheCourt
Oct 26th, 2009, 07:13 PM
BTW 03, can you explain to me why you would need high ISO outside midsummer?

Absolutely.. During RG i got there the days it rained.. so ISO 400 gave me a very dark image at 1/1250. So i had to push it up to 800 before it really got good. But then again i was on 200mm which is F5.6, except for the pain in the ass unable-to-blur background it's still a proper value for its price/performance ratio. (I'm not here to talk badly about any lens, they're all good, but it depends on your own usage). During the Ordina Open this year i also had rain.. Wimbledon was the only one where the sun came in, no issues there, but i was only days away from selling it for
the f2.8. I get along quite well with some of the tour pro's and semi-pro's, so it didn't take long to realise (after using a pro's 300F2.8 on MarkIII) that this 18/200 was "more of a toy". If you get my drift... ;)


With 18 point f/5.6 cross AF points, his 7D will focus faster and more accurately than your 50D or mine 30D with any lens. And with two DIGIC IV processors it will have no problems reaching his burstrate of 8 fps (on the 1Dmk4 it is good for 10fps). Problem with slow memorycards is that it will take longer to empty the buffer. You don't want the fastest available, you want that what suits your needs. ;)


50D is 9 and only the middle one is F2.8 sensitive, one Digic4 chip, so i needed a fast glass to get most out of the body. Plus the USM is really a must have, that was the main issue with the 18/200. Not to speak about the bugger IS. Don't get me wrong, it focusses very well, but it's IS keeps on turning when you hold it, thus you tend to block it sometimes by holding it, and the 70/200 has an internal focus ring which doesn't move when using it.
About the memcards, true .. yet i don't do wedding photography :p only sports, you don't want a clogged up buffer, you want an empty one. Especially with balls flying around at 160/200 km/h...
Sandisk Extreme III is quite good, but i still prefer the Ducati/Extreme IV edition, from testing i discovered it gives you a proper performance boost. (not that i tend to keep the shutter pressed...
So why I buy the IV series? Well do you know the type of guys who would buy a Mercedes CL500 just to drive to church every Sunday morning and do some shopping? .. Totally useless to buy unless you do 100 miles a day right? .. Well I *ahum* ..never mind, but if i could afford it... :lol:

Rix643
Oct 26th, 2009, 07:28 PM
Something I keep forgetting to mention in my posts, USM (the ring type, not the micro) or HSM is a must-have on lenses for sports photography. It comes so naturally I keep overlooking it.... :banghead:

There is something to say about lenses without IS (also about lenses with, and when necessary you can turn it off).

Some buy cars, other buy memcards, and another idiot buys too expensive glass, just because he can afford it.... *blush* (Bad_angel, don't worry, I'm only referring to myself in this case)

cellophane
Oct 26th, 2009, 08:59 PM
I agree that you have faster AF with a 2.8 lens, not just in lower light situations

Well, focusing shouldn't be that much slower with f4 in good light. In low light the difference will become more apparent though.

bad_angel_109
Oct 29th, 2009, 07:56 AM
at a friend's house quickly checking my email and decided to bump the thread.

i went to the camera store on tuesday (bought a $60 lowpro bag. couldnt find any of the <$40 ones i saw on their website) and the adapter. i charged my camera and took some photos. they dont exclusively sell L series lenses in-store coz they "arent in high demand" :rolleyes: if there's a lens i want they have to order ir in for me. they're selling the 70-200mm f/2.8 for $2000 (imo rip off!). my lens hood is $67! rip off, on the net its only $39, altho i dont think website is selling they anymore as they were doing a sale.

anyway, these are some photos i took last wednesday (when i got my camera) before the battery died. the setting was on 'P' and pretty much everything was on automatic. i've resized the pics and sharped them, besides that all the photos are original.
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4907/026d.jpg http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5654/008be.jpg http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1711/023eh.jpg <-- i dont like cats (neighbour's cat) but this was one of my first bokeh photos. i think i did alright :)

some photos i took today and yesterday. i was fiddling between the P, TV, auto focus, creative auto focus(?) and the AV settings. also i was changing with the ISO, aperture and other settings to see what would happen and how the photos would look like.
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9816/126ej.jpg http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/2126/175r.jpg
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8282/182g.jpg http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7274/251gi.jpg
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1930/262i.jpg http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/86/337z.jpg


RE: @ someone suggesting the 200mm f/2 pri9me lens: i was actually considering that lens. i know its a fixed lens. i heard thatits a pretty good alternative to the 70-200mm f/2.6 and the f/4 lenses. essence of speed (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/technical/fast_prime_telephotos.do#container) and Road Test: EF200mm f/2L IS USM (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/road_test/james_jordan.do)

Simon started using the relatively new EF200mm f/2L IS USM last summer by putting it through its paces at Wimbledon. Many sports photographers use Canon's EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS zoom lens to cover this focal length, but Simon much prefers the prime. "I'm not a lover of the 70-200mm Ė it's a utility lens that I occasionally fall back on, but I much prefer the 200mm as it is razor sharp."

the battery is apparently the exact same one that the mark II uses. the battery life is alright. but i think i'll buy another one after christmas or 2 weeks before the AO nxt year. can u charge dslr batteries anytime like digital camera batteries? or do u have to drain the whole battery before u charge it again? i forgot to ask the sales person at the camera store.

my lens is SUCH a DUST MAGNET! :( i also forgot to buy a cleaning kit. and i did a little more research and i now realize that the 70-200mm f/2.4 non-IS is black! :o i thought it was white like the IS one but its not. i cant remember what else i was going to say lol. overall im happy with my camera.

i think i got the f number and the shutter speed(?) mixed up. the aperture means that u open up ur lens(?) up to let more light in and the shutter speed is the speed of the shutter?? lol, im not too sure. the manual's been helpful.

Rix643
Oct 29th, 2009, 11:41 AM
Nice pics. I like the color saturation and conrtast of your lens. I am amazed about the low noise level in your last picture. The Exif-data on that one says you shot at ISO 1000, but it is still a nice clean picture. Especially if you sharpened it, sharpening can cause noise levels to increase.

The original Canon battery is a Lithium-ion. It has no memory, so you can charge it anytime you like. There are other disadvantages though, like a short cycle life.
See Wikipedia for more info on Li-Ion batteries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery.

All 4 Canon 70-200mm lenses, whether f/2.8, f/4, IS or non-IS are white. Maybe you've seen one with a cover?

You're about right about aperture and shutter speed. The lower the f-number the wider the diaphragm(aperture) and the more light a lens let in. The shutter speed tells you how long the sensor will be exposed. The speed of the shutter (a combination of two curtains) itself will not change, merely the time between the first curtain to open and the second curtain to close.

bad_angel_109
Oct 30th, 2009, 03:06 AM
Nice pics. I like the color saturation and conrtast of your lens. I am amazed about the low noise level in your last picture. The Exif-data on that one says you shot at ISO 1000, but it is still a nice clean picture. Especially if you sharpened it, sharpening can cause noise levels to increase.thanks :) i was just taking random pics in my backyard and in the neighbours' yards lol. with the last pic i was saw it and took a photo, i was actually going to delete it. is ISO 1000 good for a pic like that or bad? i cant remember if it means i let in more light into the lens or if i didnt :scratch:

imo i think the original non-resized and non-sharpened picture looks better. once my internet gets fixed i'll upload a few more photos. believe it or not all those pics that i took are manually-focused (except for the first 3 pics, they are just test shots and the settings were on automatic). i like manual focus, i dont know why but i prefer it more than IS and AF. i find the IS and AF a bit slow whereas i can just manually focus in less than 1 second if i use MF. i like it, its useful. the flash is ok too.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9463/o337.th.jpg (http://img194.imageshack.us/i/o337.jpg/)

All 4 Canon 70-200mm lenses, whether f/2.8, f/4, IS or non-IS are white. Maybe you've seen one with a cover?i dont actually know, it probably did have a cover on. what do u think of the 200mm f/2 prime lens? i know u mightn't have used it before, but it seems pretty good...except for the fixed focal length part.

at the AO its quite hot and sunny, very sunny. so would that mean i still need a fast aperture and/or shutter speed? i dont know if i'll be staying to watch the night matches (it really depends who's playing and if im interested in the match tbh). i understand that if im watching a match in rod laver or hisense i'll need a fast, sharp lens. as there are shadows and i dont think a photo will look good if i take a picture of a player who is in half-shadow and half-sunlight if that makes sense :confused:

i havent done any night photography yet but i will. the video-recording system is pretty good, i heard its better than the canon mark II. apparently if u want really good photos u get the mark II and if u want great (full) HD u should buy the 7D. the internal mic is pretty good altho since i dont have USM on my lens, u can hear me turning the focus ring(?) when im using MF.

cellophane
Oct 30th, 2009, 03:59 AM
The 200mm f2 IS lens is VERY VERY expensive - it costs what - 4K $ US? So are you asking about that lens? It's an awesome lens, but highly expensive...

The 200mm f2.8 is much lighter and much much much more affordable (it's also black). It's better than any of the zooms (not to say that the zooms are bad) as far as sharpness, but it's not as flexible, so you need to think about what you want... I'd start off with a zoom IMO, but the prime is also lighter in weight...

You typically shouldn't need 2.8 for afternoon shooting if that's all you'll be doing, unless it's really gloomy and overcast? What are chances of that happening in Melbourne :lol:

Rix643
Oct 30th, 2009, 10:04 PM
A higher ISO means your sensor takes more light, so you can use faster shutter speeds or smaller apertures (higher f-numbers). It also causes noise and larger image-files, thus slowing down (marginally) your burst-rate.
IMO the choice of ISO depends more or less on the choice of aperture and shutter speed. Your primary choices should be about the depth-of-field (shallow for portraits or macro, deep for landscapes) and whether you want motion-stopping shutter speeds or allow for some motion blur to give the picture some dynamics. Of course, because the lower the ISO the lower the noise, if you want to make big prints, youīll keep your ISO as low as possible.

In case of the last picture when focussing on the bucket with ball (if that was your intention, the focus now is a couple of inches in front on the grass) I normally would have chosen a low f-number, giving a shallow DOF. But since there are some focussing issues here, I might well have chosen a smaller aperture to get the main subject sharp. The subject doesn't move, so high shutter speeds aren't necessary to avoid motion blur. The only limiting aspect is the focal length and how steady you can hold your camera. With a focal length of 110mm I wouldn't go below 1/100" or 1/60" when well experienced. With IS you might use 1/15" and with a good tripod you could use Bulb.
So, in case of that last picture, which was taken at 1/320", F8, ISO 1000 with a focal length of 110, I probably would have chosen 1/80", F/5, ISO 100.

It is up to you what your priorities are when taking pictures. I can imagine you'd like to stop motion when photographing tennis, so you'll probably give high shutter speeds priority. That you'll probably need wide apertures to accomplish that, might be an added bonus, that is if you want the background to be blurred. However, if you want to get a nice picture of the umpire and linesmen as well, you have to resort to high f-numbers, probably needing high ISO. But in the end it depends on lighting conditions and the man behind the camera: you. There's a reason why Canon calls the Av, Tv and M-modes the creative modes..

When conditions differ a lot, like half shadow half light, you can use spot metering in combination with AE locking. I admit, it can be tricky. Before you know it you take a picture of a subject in full light, just when you metered him in shadows, thus giving an overexposed picture (or the other way around of course). You can salvaging some with PS, especially when you shoot RAW, but there will be details lost. In these situations only practise makes perfect.

If I really want great photos I use the 1Ds mk3 (have I mentioned winning the lottery is required? :p). When I want to take great video, I buy a videocamera.. :shrug:
Personally, I find it rather BS to have video capabilities on high-end camera's like the 1D-series (I really cannot imagine a pro sitting at the sidelines of a sporting event making video with his 1Dmk4...:tape:) or the 5D or 7D for that matter.

Langers
Oct 31st, 2009, 03:24 AM
Ok my turn for help.

I'm interested in buying a new Camera, has to be a Canon I think, just the best in what they do.

http://www.cnet.com.au/canon-eos-1000d-339289627.htm

Priced at $999. 18mm-55mm/75mm-300mm lenses.

http://www.cnet.com.au/canon-eos-450d-339285420.htm

$1339. 18mm-55mm/55mm-250mm lenses. IS lenses (umm, what?)

http://www.cnet.com.au/canon-eos-500d-339295641.htm

$1559. 18mm-55mm/55mm-250mm lenses. IS lenses.


Any help would be much appreciated. I'm basically a novice, I've had a good but not great camera for the past 2 years and really enjoy taking photos and want one with a good zoom and good picture quality (my current one doesn't have the most outstanding picture quality).


bad_angel_109, clicked on the link for yours, looks great. 18.0 Megapixel! :eek: Is the amount of Megapixel's just the quality of the picture when blown-up? Because to me megapixel's aren't that important, the one I've got now has a lot and at the time I thought you beauty but now other things are more important.

The 400D looks pretty good... http://www.cnet.com.au/canon-eos-400d-240092224.htm

bad_angel_109
Nov 1st, 2009, 08:04 AM
Okbad_angel_109, clicked on the link for yours, looks great. 18.0 Megapixel! :eek: Is the amount of Megapixel's just the quality of the picture when blown-up? Because to me megapixel's aren't that important, the one I've got now has a lot and at the time I thought you beauty but now other things are more important. lol, i wanted a camera which had THE most megapixels. tbc i actually wanted the 50D or the 500D a few months ago til i saw the 7D had 3 more MP than those 2 cameras :lol:

im not gonna blow up my pics to poster size (if anything, i'd blown some pics up to about an A4 size or if its an excellent photo an A3 size), so the 18MP wont wasnt the best choice for me. tbh again i prob would've just settled on a 12MP camera - nikon or canon. tho prob canon. i've prob have bought the 450D. now i just need to say up for a good L series lens. i was thinking about getting the 70-300mm/18-300mm lens (i think both are f/2.8) but they dont have USM, or at least i think the 18-300mmm doesnt. also now i think a prime lens (the 200mm f/2.8) would be good.

im oretty sure it would be IMPOSSIBLE to get in the AO with me lugging a huge white 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on my shoulder unless i've got a media accreditation pass or if was a professional photographer. i worked at the AO this year and trust me, the security guards is very strict about who gets thro the posts (sealed off sections). some players dont have to flash their pass but others and staff (like me) had to actually hand ur pass to the guard for them to take a closer inspection.

You typically shouldn't need 2.8 for afternoon shooting if that's all you'll be doing, unless it's really gloomy and overcast? What are chances of that happening in Melbourne :lol:ur right, there's a very slim chance of there being an overcast let alone rain in melbourne during jan :lol:

i'll be sitting in within the first 3 rows (outside courts) and if i go to hisense again im gonna be sitting within the first 7-10 rows behind where the players and the umpire sit. but if its RLA then there's a pretty good chance i'll be in the upper tier again (again it depends on the match/es i watch). but i was sitting in the first row so i dunno. i think a 200mm f/2.8 prime lens would be alright. USM is a top priority of mine.

however if i were to make a decisions right now on what lens i'd buy it qwould probably have to be a 200mm f/2.8 prime lens. i must admit the fixed 200mm focus length annoys me coz my lens is already 200mm. why did canon discontinue making their 18-200mm f/2.8 USM lenses?? i'd sell my non-USM lens and buy it because it has the USM meaning it'd focus a bit quicker and its silent.



i've posted the pics here, but i've got a flickr account and i'll be posting more pics there within the next couple of months leading up to the AO. my account (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bad_angel_109)

bad_angel_109
Nov 3rd, 2009, 09:40 AM
now im not so sure about the 200mm f/2.8 prime. this is all so confusing, argh. here are some reviews i've read.

I buy this 200 2.8L 2 months ago to replace my 70-200 2.8L is
In the reason of the weight 200 2.8 much lighter and faster.
This 200 2.8L similar to 135 2.0L in term of bokeh, weight, price and size.
I shoot for wedding and portrait to get the beautiful background.
But if you decide to buy this lens, make sure you are not a person who's care about the zoom and happy to walk to find your distance.
__________________________________________________ _________

I am constantly amazed at the image quality I get with this lens on my Canon XT/350D. This lens is focuses incredibly fast, has crystal clear, sharp detail, is bright and the colors are right on the money. It also works well in low light. Although slightly heavier than my other lenses, I am still able to take most of my pictures hand-held. Minimal loss of detail with my Kenko Pro 1.4X teleconverter. Since the lens is not a zoom, you will miss some picture oportunities, but will more than make up for that by taking a lot more impulse pictures because of the fast zoom. I use this as my general walk-around lens.
__________________________________________________ _________

The sharpness of this lens if unreal. I can without a doubt tell the difference between a "L" series lens and a regular lens. I use it for macro, sports, wildlife and portraits. You won't be disappointed or broke if you buy this lens. pic (http://images2.powerreviews.com/media_popup.html?type=image&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpowerreviews.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fi mages_customers%2F06%2F13%2F191145_13442_full.jpg) __________________________________________________ ___________

This has to be the sharpest lens I've ever used (barring med and large format). It's ability to resolve is far beyond the camera's (Canon 5D 12.8Mp) It's fast enough to be used at indoor sporting events and though a zoom would be more versitile the 70-200 f2.8 is nowhere near as sharp.
__________________________________________________ _________

I admit that this lens was cleary sharp and fast focus. Excellent lens.
But one thing is there is no IS, and 200mm bit shaky if u can not hold it right. After 2 days i bought this lens i returned and swap to 70-200mm F/2.8 IS, I know this lens is very heavy and expensive but this lens is the most photographer use and excellent sharp.
Should i recommend you 200mm lens ? Its depend what you using at, coz no IS. But i recommend stretch more time to save more money to get 70-200mm F/2.8 IS USM.<-- this review's put me off the 200mm prime

i also thought these reviews were helpful as well. i got this reviews from adorama (i really wish there was a store like that in australia :() and amazon.

52 of 54 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent for what it is, but look elsewhere for versatility, January 29, 2008
By David Indech
The grand appeal of this prime is that offers the telephoto reach and fast f/2.8 aperture of Canon's 70-200/2.8 professional lenses, but at far less cost and size. In practical terms, the 200/2.8 is fast enough to shoot nighttime football games that would have slower f/5.6 consumer zooms struggling to reign in motion blur.

Unlike consumer zooms, it also takes well to a 1.4X teleconverter, giving the equivalent of 280mm at f/4. The USM autofocus system is quick, silent, and sure in almost any lighting, and because it's essentially a longer version of Canon's legendary 135/2, this 200/2.8 is plenty sharp all the way from f/2.8. Finally, because it's small and black, the security at sporting venues is far more likely to let you take it inside.

It's not all roses though. 200mm on a 1.6X crop body is a 320mm equivalent. That's a lot of lens to handhold without stabilization. Pure sharpness doesn't stand for much when the whole frame is blurred by handshake. Despite the fast f/2.8 aperture, it takes a lot of light to keep the shutter speeds up, and this lens isn't all that forgiving below 1/400; good technique and proper bracing are essential. My copy suffers further from chromatic aberration (color fringing around highlights) and loss of contrast in sunlight to a greater extent than any other lens that I own. Shooting into the sun, or with the sun just outside the frame, is not a forte. I'd dock a star for this if Amazon would let me.

If you want versatility, there are also better choices than the 200/2.8. Framing options are limited, and you'll rarely find the composition afforded by 200mm exactly matches what you intended. While the 70-200/2.8 series are no stronger optically than this lens, they'll get the shot every time purely by the ability to track an object at 70mm, and rapidly zoom to 200mm to take the picture. The addition of IS (image stabilization) alone doubles the number of keepers on the 70-200/2.8 IS. If your livelihood depends on your results, that's worth the price of admission.

But if you're not molting fifties, and you just want a sharp and fast telephoto that'll manage better shutter speeds, sharpness, background blur, and contrast (in most circumstances) than a consumer zoom, this 200/2.8L is a great choice.
__________________________________________________ _________________

9 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars Type II, July 25, 2007
By Gordon Yonehara ""new to digital""
This lens was purchased for use with the XTI. For me this replaced a 300mm F2.8 FD on an F1. The detachable lens shade is frail and bulky and therefore of little use to me (the discontinued Type I apparently had a built in hood). The tripod ring should be kitted with the lens, not sold as an accessory. Images with 1.4 & 2X extenders appear softer than they should be at maximum aperture. I think my results with the 300 plus extenders (and film) more consistant. Having said that, advanges include ability to use conventional filters (77mm polarizer) and great savings in weight, bulk, and cost for essentially the same field of view.

damn, i should've bought the 450D or the 500D or 50D (for the extra 3MP :lol:) and then i would've had the extra cash to buy a proper L series lens that would suit me and my photography needs :o

im still trying to find an alternative to the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS but i've had no luck :sobbing: so im currently looking at sigma and tamron lenses. i know someone (soz i've forgotten who said it, prob rix) said that sigma and/or tamrom lenses are good for tennis or (fast) sports in general but i dont know what else to consider and do

bad_angel_109
Nov 3rd, 2009, 12:36 PM
i dont know if anyone will reply.

The 35-65 Sigma thing about Sigma isn't really true... there are some very good Sigma lenses out there... For example the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is sharper than the Canon equivalent and has better background blur(bokeh)... the quality control however can be extremely poor with Sigma, so that's why you need to be careful. A common problem with Sigma lenses on Canon bodies is they don't focus correctly...

If you want a lighter lens, then any of the f4 versions would be the way to go... I would personally go for the IS version even though it's more expensive. It's reportedly the sharpest of all the 70-200 lenses that Canon makes...and IS would help in low light for things that don't move (it will not help with sports in low light, because all IS does is allow you to take images at slower shutter speeds without blur)that was the impression i got from the reviews i read of sigma lenses. and im just starting out so any review or whatever of a lens sounds good to me I'll think the product must be good.

what do you think of these sigma lenses? Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/sigma-70-300mm-f4-5-6-dg-pentax-mount--1421640_sigma-slr-lenses--2324897_.html) Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/sigma-28-300mm-f3-5-6-3-dg--1421639_sigma-slr-lenses--2324897_.html)

i've been looking at some AO pics ppl have taken the past couple of years and someone got thro with a 70-300mm (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/nikon-afs-70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6gvr-zoom--2109764_nikon-slr-lenses--2074820_.html) lens :o but it was a nikon lens to a nikon camera. before i bought my 7D i was considering a nikon but i chose a canon camera coz i think about 75% (or more) of all the professional photographers these days (especially at the big sporting events) are using canon.

i really want to buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM BUT i dont have that sort of money atm and i want the cheapest price available. however i'd found that the f/4 non-IS version costs $619.90 (about $691.42AUD and another $110 or so for postage and handling and shipping costs) on amazon. but the f/2.8 IS version is $1249.95 ($1393.17AUD + postage and handling, etc.) which i must say i consider a good price for a brand new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens. im fine with paying an extra $100 or so to buy a black lens cover thing so its black instead of an "off-white" colour.

tho the MAJOR CON for not buying the lens is its weight, its nearly 1.5kg isnt it? i would happily buy a monopod/tripod and bring it with me, lugging it around all day (except on 35+ degree days which is like most days in melbourne :awww:). but as i said before tripods and monopods and other things are prohibited as its a security thing with public safety, etc.

thats why im now considering buying a sigma lens as what rix said before...


I have one Tamron lens, a 18-200mm, I use as a general walk-around lens when I don't want to carry much and don't care about IQ. It makes decent pictures, but absolutely not comparable with L-grade lenses. It loses on every aspect (except weight), like contrast, color saturation, sharpness, distortion and CA.
The Tamron 70-200 you mentioned weighs almost as much as a 70-200 2.8 non IS, so why do you consider it, while you state the Canon is too heavy for you? For almost the same amount of money I would definitely choose the Canon f/4.0 IS, no second thought about it.. I'd even prefer the 4.0 non-IS above the Tamron.

has put me off buying a tamron lens and u say some sigma lenses arent that bad which i've also read in sigma lens reviews. now researching into sigma lenses a bit more, specifically the 70-200mm (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/sigma-70-300mm-f4-5-6-dg-pentax-mount--1421640_sigma-slr-lenses--2324897_.html) and the 28-300mm (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/sigma-28-300mm-f3-5-6-3-dg--1421639_sigma-slr-lenses--2324897_.html). they're relatively cheap (and black which is a priority and have their own version of canon's USM if im not mistaken? which is what im looking for.). i have the money up front so i could (if i 110% decided that i was to buy one of these sigma lenses) go down to my local camera shop again sometime this week or next week and buy the lens. and at the same time getting assistance from the sales person and probably (im hoping) being able to test out the lens/es and see how the AF and sharpness and other photography jargon works.

Rix643
Nov 3rd, 2009, 01:35 PM
Langers, I can't help you much with the entry-level dSLRs by Canon. I know the 1000D is the most basic and with the xxxD types, the higher the number the more recent the model. I think it's best to do a side-by-side comparison and check which features suits you the best.
About pixels, how much do you need? If you just going to display it on screen, remember that true HD is about 2M (1920x1080), an average computer screen 1024x768 (0.8M). But more pixels also means you can crop large parts of your photo without losing resolution. For prints, 300 pixels per inch is more or less standard. Modern good quality printers also make good prints on 200 ppi, 180 is the absolute minimum (although you can use lower resolutions for prints to be viewed from a distance). For A3 (size = 16.5x11.7 inchh) you'll need 2970x2106 (6.25M) minimum, 3300x2340(7.7M) acceptable or 4950x3510 (17.3M) pixels at most. Divede the largest factor by 2 to get the needed resolution for A4.

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]i was thinking about getting the 70-300mm/18-300mm lens (i think both are f/2.8)
There are 2 70-300mm lenses, both f/4.5-5.6 IS USM, one of them is a DO-lens (Diffractive Optics). I couldn't find a 18-300mm lens. Did you mean the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM? Expensive one.... Anyway, Canon doesn't make telezooms larger than 200mm with f/2.8.

USM is a top priority of mine.....because it has the USM meaning it'd focus a bit quicker and its silent.Beware: Canon sells two types of USM: ring and micro. You want the ring-type. The micro variety is just as fast as any ordinary lens, only a bit quieter. How to tell if it's ring or micro? Here's a list: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=20113712. The list is rather old, for newer model lenses you have to search the Internet. Usually cheap zooms have micro, L-lenses always ring USM.

Some people make razor sharp pictures with an 200mm lens at 1/50", others make pictures with a 200mm at 1/1000" like there was an 8.2 magnitude earthquake happening... What I'm trying to say, you shouldn't be put off because one reviewer can't hold his equipment properly. There's only one way to find out whether a lens suits your needs. Try it out, rent a lens for a day if possible.


Those sigma lenses you mentioned in your last post, well, being a -300mm zoom might be problamatic to get into the AO. I don't know either of them and I had to read a couple of reviews on the net. They are both considered to be low-end lenses. The 70-300mm is qualified decent at best, while the 28-300mm is below average. Neither of them has HSM (Sigma's version of Canon's ring-USM).

I have to disappoint you: on Amazone the 2.8 IS is $1799 ($1725 for a used one). $1249.95 is for the non-IS. Look careful when you're ordering on-line, you might order the wrong item (or I might be mistaken and they do offer an IS for $1250. In that case, send me the link ;) It is less than what I get if I sell my non-IS here. I might consider changing....:p)

cellophane
Nov 3rd, 2009, 02:05 PM
I'm not sure why you decided NOT to go for this lens after reading the reviews? They say exactly what I said... it's not as versatile as a zoom but they say it's sharper than a zoom at 200mm... And that last review mentions IS...you don't need IS for tennis pictures because IS is designed to work when you take pictures at slower shutter speeds to prevent camera shake. For tennis or other sports, you'll be using high shutter speeds, so IS won't be necessary. IS is helpful if you are shooting *static* subjects that *don't move* at slower speeds...

I do think for you a prime is maybe not the right choice, because you are starting out and for sports I would probably take a zoom ... once you get more comfortable, maybe buy one.

I don't think you should decide whether you should buy something purely on Amazon user reviews though... yes, these can be helpful, but in no way should they be he deciding factor IMO.

I think the main thing is if you are going to be shooting in low light at all with this lens. If not, I think it's clear that you should buy the 70-200 F4 IS... I think it's your best pick because it's light, versatile sharp and has IS. Can you buy that lens? OK, it's white and it's not 2.8 (which I would prefer if shooting in low light), but you can't have everything. You need to decide whether for you color of the lens, or weight or versatility is more important. As long as you are not shooting sports in low light or plan on shooting moving people in low light, I think it's the best pick for you for now.

So to summarize I think your best options are

70-200 IS f4 Pros -
Versatility + light weight + sharpness + has IS
cons- not as good for moving subjects in low light as 2.8, although IS will be better for static subjects than 2.8, white, although I think that's the least important thing, compared to others more expensive than the others. If you can afford it, buy it!

70-200 f4 - Pros - versatility of a zoom, light weight, sharpness, cheaper than 70-200 f4 IS ...
cons - white, no IS for low light to help you with non-moving subjects, costs the same as a Sigma 2.8 lens... which if you can find a good copy I would buy


Canon 200 2.8 prime - Pros - 2.8, sharpest lens of the bunch, light, black, cons - no IS, you might not like using it because it's NOT a zoom

70-200 f2.8 Sigma - Pros - a 2.8, a zoom..., BLACK!!! cons - heavy, no IS, can be hard to find a good copy without issues, so buy from a store with a return policy or test it out if buying used





For sports, Canon 7D *should* be the best *affordable* Canon camera right now ... should be quite a bit better than the Rebels at tracking, once you figure it out. Also, that thing about picking Canon because most pros using Canon at professional sports events... You know, there's now actually a lot of Nikon pros shooting sports because of their D300/D3 cameras, which have great AF system for action. A lot of the pros have moved to Nikon because of their supposedly superior AF system in those cameras. There's been a lot of complaints about Canon's AF reliability for tracking in the pro circles... so Canon is not necessarily better in that area, although not necessarily worse either. You might have started off with a Rebel, but I think once you learn how to use it, you'll be happier with the 7D because it is a more sophisticated camera with better image quality and has a lot more features.

cellophane
Nov 3rd, 2009, 02:31 PM
Tamron lenses I don't think are good for sports... again I've not owned one, so don't let that stop you, but I would prefer to try out the Sigma first personally.

The 70-300 are 28-300 Sigma are not very good lenses image quality wise, 28-300 is especially crappy I believe... The good Sigma lenses are their pro line (I think they have an EX designation) , not their consumer lenses which 70-300 and 28-300. From what I remember reading the 70-300 is actually quite a decent lens too (if it's a Macro?), but AF is not going to be as good for sports with either. I think you should stay away from *consumer* lenses made by Sigma and only buy their pro line lenses.

Canon also makes some 70-300 lens? But they are not USM, right? I honestly don't think you are going to find anything as good as the 70-200 f4 IS that actually has IS. But there are other options without it... and for tennis it's not needed.

And FYI, Amazon usually has expensive prices... I would recommend doing a lot of research to find the best price. Unless of course you want to buy locally... you might want to try and search your local ads for used if you want to save some money... but of course be careful with testing it out. There are also camera forums like fredmiranda.com which I'd recommend if you are buying used, as you can get good deals from forum members, and the people who sell there are usually great. Not sure you'll find a lot of Australian deals though, and whether you might be inclined to buy, but it's an option. I think you can find a 70-200 IS f4 for quite a bit cheaper used.

Rix643
Nov 3rd, 2009, 05:33 PM
Excellent posts by Cellophane, couldn't agree more. Just a few additions.
Any serious prime beats a professional zoom, but a zoom offers much more versatility, you'll be able to reframe your picture in a blink of an eye. So you can nicely zoom in on a player when he/she is concentrating on a serve, and quickly zoom out to catch that amazing net volley 15 seconds later.

From all the information you've given, I also think the Canon f/4 IS is your best choice. It's also weather-sealed and makes a nice combo with your camera that can take a drop or two. I doubt you'll shoot in low light regulary and you won't be needing that extra stop so much. One more little disadvantage of a f/4 over a f/2.8: when used with a 2x extender you'll lose autofocus.

Indeed, Canon lost a lot of territory to Nikon due to some auto-focus problems of the 1D mk3 ("the ultimate action camera"). Now Canon has come with a successor, the 1D mk4, and, as they don't want to make the same mistake twice, they've developed an entire new AF-system and tested it out with... the 7D. IMO, the 7D is by far the best crop camera available.

Both Canon's 70-300 have USM, but the cheaper non-DO is of the micro variety. The DO has ring-USM.

bad_angel_109
Nov 4th, 2009, 07:56 AM
thanks for all ur advise cellphane and rix with the sigma and tamron lenses. when i made this thread i must admit after researching and reading thoughts, suggestions and reviews on the canon 70-200mm f/28 and the f/4, IS and non-IS, i was quite anal (if u couldnt already tell :p) about the off-white colour. but now i dont really care about the colour as i can just buy a cover/coat thing to hide the colour of the lens. but the weight is the one MAJOR concern for me. its about 750grams isnt it? i'll be at the tennis for the most of the day (8-12 hours, tho i have stayed for 17+ hrsin 1 day before. mainly for the nadal-verdasco semi-final match which was an amazing experience and match. the only down side was my cameras, my 8MP olympus and my crappy 4MP nikon coolpix).

the 70-200mm f/4 IS sounds pretty good. but atm im not really in a hurry to buy a lens atm. maybe when it gets towards christmas and the AO starts creeping up then i'll make a definite decision to buy a lens.

i was walking around (trying to find birds or any fast subject besides cars to take pics of to see how my camera can deal with a 'freeze' action shot. i've seen some nice freeze shots on flickr taken with the 7D, the lenses used were either a 100mm or 200mm prime or one of the 70-200mm lenses :(). anyway i saw this guy practicing by himself in the local tennis courts i have near my house (there's also a tennis club near my house but the owner/trainers dont want me taking photos of them or their students which are mainly kids).

i took some photos of this guy but they are of shit quality coz its all manual focus and i think it was spot metre(?) AF. i had forgotten how to set the AL servo(?) setting :lol: here are some of the crap pics, he wasn't very good nor was he fast at serving. i used the TV setting hoping to freeze the motion. a big fail lol.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9636/496qz.jpg http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7609/497b.jpg
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/5931/501ae.jpg http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/591/503pb.jpg
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6235/504up.jpg http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8417/509q.jpg
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5273/505k.jpg

Nikkiri
Nov 4th, 2009, 08:07 AM
Ok my turn for help.

I'm interested in buying a new Camera, has to be a Canon I think, just the best in what they do.

http://www.cnet.com.au/canon-eos-1000d-339289627.htm

Priced at $999. 18mm-55mm/75mm-300mm lenses.

http://www.cnet.com.au/canon-eos-450d-339285420.htm

$1339. 18mm-55mm/55mm-250mm lenses. IS lenses (umm, what?)

http://www.cnet.com.au/canon-eos-500d-339295641.htm

$1559. 18mm-55mm/55mm-250mm lenses. IS lenses.


Any help would be much appreciated. I'm basically a novice, I've had a good but not great camera for the past 2 years and really enjoy taking photos and want one with a good zoom and good picture quality (my current one doesn't have the most outstanding picture quality).


bad_angel_109, clicked on the link for yours, looks great. 18.0 Megapixel! :eek: Is the amount of Megapixel's just the quality of the picture when blown-up? Because to me megapixel's aren't that important, the one I've got now has a lot and at the time I thought you beauty but now other things are more important.

The 400D looks pretty good... http://www.cnet.com.au/canon-eos-400d-240092224.htm

I have the Canon 1000D its a pretty good camera and pretty reasonable price.

cellophane
Nov 9th, 2009, 02:37 PM
So I'm wondering what I should pick between the Sony A900 and Canon 5d mk 2... :scratch:

I can save almost 600 dollars on A900, and right now that's kind of a lot.

5d2 has better noise handling at high ISO (which is big) and Live View (which can also be useful), but A900 has in-body IS, better colors, better low ISO performance, better dynamic range and Carl Zeiss glass which is superior to Canon's (24-70, 135, 16-35)... it's actually not terrible at high ISO just not as good

Meh I guess I already decided, since I got an amazing deal on the Zeiss 135mm 1.8 (that lens is supposed to be amazing), but I could sell it and stay with the 5d mk 2.

bad_angel_109
Nov 14th, 2009, 02:13 PM
im gonna bu,mp this thread up again :)

i've been do more research on the internet, googling things and such about lenses and prices (the mojority on telephoto zoomz and primes). i've narrowed it down to about 4 or 5 lenses, all canon as im not 100% certain on 3rd party lenses, particularly tamron and sigma - i've read some mixed reviews and what ppl have said here.

Here's what i'm considering to buy as my 2nd lens to accompany my kit lens (18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS).

* 100mm f/2.8 macro (is there a non-macro one? i thought there was??)
* 135mm f/2.8 IS
* 200mm f/2.8 USM
* 24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM (although probably not going to buy this lens as mine is an alright walk-around lens)
* 70-200mm f/4 IS USM

i might have gotten the f-number wrong for a couple of of those ^ lenses.
im not going to buy the 70-200mm f/2.8 a it is twice as heavy as the f/4 lens and im not strong enough to do handheld photography with that lens without a tipod/monopod for like 1 hour let alone almost a whole day at the AO in 40 degree heat. too many ppl and too much pushing and shoving.

i went to my local camera shop on friday and bought me a lens hood but i have to wait a week or a bit longer for coz the shop doesnt stock the lens and had to order it from canon. i was going to buy a cleaning kit but the 3 types of cleaning kits they sold were store-branded ones which i thought was a little weird and up themselves lol. and 2 out of the 3 cleaning kit packs had cotton buds in them :confused: wouldnt u damage the glass of the lens if u sprayed whatever 'cleaning' liquid was in the spray bottle??

anyway i asked about the 24-70mm f/2.8 and its $1990. in my i scoffed thinking that if i paid an extra $100 i could buy the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM at the shop. i also asked how much the 200mm f/2.8 prime was and its $1200 which i thought wasnt a bad price.

here are some review i've read about the 200mm prime. click on the click it'll take u to the forum where the poster had taken a few photos at (wat im pretty sure is one, havent worked out which one, olympus USO series events) a wta tourney. the pics look alright imo they were probably using a monopod or resting their elbows to get the nice shots as the prime doesnt have IS :(

The image quality of the 200mm L is better than the 100-400 but the difference is not big. We are talking about two different-purpose lenses.
___________________________________________

Canon made the 200mm L for sports and portraits thus its large aperture and teleconverter compatibility.
___________________________________________

The 100-400 L is clearly a press reporter lens.That's why it has the push-pull zoom,for quick zooming and the stabilizer for hand-held photography.It lacks the large aperture necessary for fast shutter speeds(IS doesn't compensate for object movement) [link] (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=33332113)
___________________________________________

[click to see pics taken with the prime of alona, sammy, anna and masha] (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=33322650)

i've also been reading these;

Are the "L-series" EOS lenses a marketing ploy or truly professional tool? (http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/003uSq)

Are L-Series lenses worth the extra cost? (http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00EgPN)

L series lenses (http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Qe7q)

Hidden L lens, quality for cheap (http://www.shutterpad.com/blog/gear/hidden-l-lenses-quality-lenses-for-cheap/)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM online forum review/opinions (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=304)

An Abundance of Choices — Updated October, 2005 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_lenses.shtml)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L - Test Report / Review (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/195-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review)

Canon EOS Digital SLR System (http://photo.net/equipment/canon/)

Canon EF 70-200mm f4 IS USM L online sorta review (http://reviews.cnet.com/lenses/canon-ef-70-200mm/4505-13038_7-32145498.html#cnetReview)

before i thought all prime lenses were L series lenses but then i read that they weren't lol, my bad. but atm im more so leaning towards buying a L series prime (either the 100mm f/2.8 IS marco USM, 135mm f/2.8 or the 200mm f/2.8 USM) or buying the versatile 70-200mm f/4 IS USM. if im buying that lens im definitely buying the IS lens. plus another reason im not buying the 70-200mm f/28 IS lens besides the price and weight is coz im pretty much only going to use the lens as a seasonal shooter. i'll only been using it at the AO which is once a year opposed to buying the lighter (thankfully its much lighter) 70-200mm f/4 which still means i'll still get great(?) good sharp quality images. and its a pro lens to suit my semi-pro camera which is owned by an amateur photographer (whose photography skills, hopefully, improve over time to match the features of the camera) :)

i've found a small (i think its independent as well) american shop that sells the 70-200mm f/4 IS (brand new) for $610 which is less than $650 australian dollars. i've sent them an enquiry about the shipping costs and everything. tho im a little wary about the quality of the lens as amazon is selling it for double the price.

can someone plz explain to me the difference between RAW and JPEG to me? i've read this...
JPEG
Stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group and is universally acknowledged as the standard file type for storing digital images. All cameras will be able to save images as JPEG, which are compressed files — that is, some information is lost from the final image in order to keep file sizes smaller.
_________________________________

RAW
RAW files capture the image "as the camera sees it", without any compression or post-processing. This means the final image has the most amount of detail possible, resulting in large file sizes. However, photographers who want the maximum amount of control will shoot in RAW as it gives them flexibility in altering and adjusting the image in post-processing.
but i dont really understand it besides the post-processing side to it. i've pressed the raw/jpeg buttom on my camera a few times but i dont think it works lol. all my pictures i've taken so far are jpeg files.

here's a 31 page review on the 7D, which wasnt available before i bought my camera, there was only a preview available which i thought was ok. dpreview hands-on review on canon EOS 7D (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/)

and here are some photos of horses jumping and stuff (i've forgotten what the technical name is lol) horse pics (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vongole/tags/canonef70200mmf4lisusm/page1/)

link to the (imo) reasonably cheap 70-200mm f/4 IS (http://www.photo4less.com/pd-productid-1410.htm) - do u think i should buy it? i really dont think it would fit in my camera bag that i bought 2 weeks ago :(

do u think, in general, buying lenses and L series lenses is addictive? i've heard that is it




i've just realized how BIG the font is and it makes the page all weird and a bit difficult to read, apologies for that lol.

bad_angel_109
Nov 14th, 2009, 02:38 PM
i also found Canon EOS 7d 60p slow motion test/SPL Waterhousings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZZ6mMUyTTo) on youtube a few days ago. i reckon it looks awesome.

cellophane
Nov 14th, 2009, 03:16 PM
100mm 2.8 IS macro is a specialized macro lens... I don't think this should be your first purchase if you are goal is to shoot everything with it, including the Australian Open.

And also most of the lenses you listed are actually not IS. The 135 f2.8 is actually 135 f2, and the 24-70 2.8 IS doesn't exist either, although there are rumors of Canon adding IS to the 24-70 lens. Either way, it's too short for sports.

My advice is NOT to buy anything in Australia as the prices on camera gear are going to be twice as expensive as they are in the US. OK, well, I don't know for sure, but it sure seems that way.

BTW, 70-200 f4 IS can't possibly sell for this price NEW or used.. which store did you find it at? It sounds like the right price for 70-200 f4 WITHOUT IS. You should always check out the store atwww.resellerratings.com to see if they are legit or fraudsters. The used price for that lens is closer to $ 1000 Australian.

cellophane
Nov 14th, 2009, 11:22 PM
Oh, yeah, I see from the link you are talking about photo4less... that's the 70-200 F4 non-IS lens they are selling not the IS version.

Rix643
Nov 14th, 2009, 11:51 PM
Great pics of Alona, Sammy, Masha and Anna. Taken at very high shutter speed (slowest was Masha's at 1/2500"), so no need for support to prevent blur.
And of course, taken with Canon's best (and most expensive) body, the 1Ds mkIII...

Rix643
Nov 15th, 2009, 12:12 PM
Well, my last post was rather short, but it was in the middle of the night and I reacted to something I noticed immediately (coming back at that later).

First the 5 lenses you mentioned.
- 100mm f/2.8 Macro: a great entry-level lens when you start macro-photography (things close-up); not really suited for anything else, except maybe portrait-photography.
- 135mm f/2.8 IS: doesn't exist. There is a 2.8, but it's a soft-focus lens. Absolutely not suitable for action photography. No IS BTW. There's also a 135mm f/2.0 USM (no IS either). This is a superb lens, and probably one of my first choices when I start buying primes (I like my aperture as wide as possible).
- 200mm f/2.8 USM: some call it the sharpest 200mm lens Canon makes. I can't add more to that, it is really good as you can tell by the examples you provided. But keep in mind, these examples were made with a FF body. When used on a body with crop sensor it is equivalent to a 320mm lens. This might get you too close to the action.
- 24-70mm f/2.8 USM (no IS): nicknamed the wedding lens. Great lens, not really suitable for tennis though (although I used it's older brother occasionally when I want a larger frame).
- 70-200 f/4 IS USM: IMNSHO the best option for you.

You forgot to mention the 100mm f/2.8L USM (H-)IS Macro in your list (you mentioned it later). It is a great and versatile lens with wheather-sealing, the newest type IS, suitable for almost everything from macro (duh) to portrait (excellent focal range for a crop camera) to (indoor-)sports.....


JPG/RAW on your camera: maybe your button isn't configured right, or you're shooting in fully-automatic mode (no RAW). Anyway, read the manual (pages 58-61 I believe).
I really can't add much about the difference between JPG and RAW. It is just as it says in your quote, except that RAW also compresses your image, but in a lossless way: when decompressed it is the same as the original.
Try to think about it this way. When you take a picture your sensor generates 54M bytes of data: 18M times one byte per primary color (red, green, blue). In RAW mode, your camera compresses it and writes it to your card in such a way that when you decompress it you will get the same 54M bytes of data back.
JPG only uses half a byte per primary color, and when compressed the compression-routine will also take into consideration the values of the surrounding pixels. When decompressed, you get just a part of those 54MB back: information is lost. There are some articles on Wikipedia describing compression in more detail.

And yes, L-lenses are addictive (unfortunately).

Rix643
Dec 12th, 2009, 01:41 PM
Bump.

Bad angel 109, can you tell me how your camera is donig?
I'm on the verge of ordering a 1DmkIV, but I'm getting second thoughts about it lately, and I'm wondering if it isn't better to buy a 7D instead. The price difference is huge ATM, for that I could buy a grip, batteries, a 300mm f/4L IS USM and a second hand 1DmkIII, which sounds like an awesome package to me. Now I will be trying out a 7D around the holidays, but I like to know your (or for that matter anybody else's) experiences so far.

bad_angel_109
Dec 21st, 2009, 12:27 PM
Bump.

Bad angel 109, can you tell me how your camera is donig?
I'm on the verge of ordering a 1DmkIV, but I'm getting second thoughts about it lately, and I'm wondering if it isn't better to buy a 7D instead. The price difference is huge ATM, for that I could buy a grip, batteries, a 300mm f/4L IS USM and a second hand 1DmkIII, which sounds like an awesome package to me. Now I will be trying out a 7D around the holidays, but I like to know your (or for that matter anybody else's) experiences so far.tnx for bumping the thread i had forgotten about it, and a bit ironically, forgotten about my camera as well. and my internet/computer keeps playing up :(

honestly, i dont know what i could tell you that u would find useful and take into consideration as to whether u want to buy a great professional camera as the 1DmkIV that will cost u an arm and a leg and possibly another arm or buy a the 7D. umm, obviously my knowledge of anything to do with lenses and DSLR camera is limited if not very limited i cant really say much. im a bit embarrassed to admit but i havent really had anything happen in the last few months that i deem quite interesting enough to take photos of - except taking pics of my dog and the couple of birthays and family gatherings that have happened. i've read some reviews by a minority of customers saying that the 7D's image quality/sharpess is quite bad despite all the features that they liked. i have to agree, the quality sharpess isnt that good (pretty sure its me doing that tho). but this article (http://canonfieldreviews.com/7d-1-weather-sealing) proves the 7D's weather sealing is pretty amazing imo. the last pic of the seal is a classic :lol:

so im just going to post a few pics i took whilst i was in the city celebrating my grandpa's birthday and meeting up with my uncle, aunt and cousin visiting from the US. and the spacious open area with red benchs and ppl in the background in queues, that's from when i went to CostCo (a large american supermarket, bulk-buy type store, thats the first in australia, i hadnt been there before, lol). btw i like the 'saturation' (if i can call it that) of the red that i get from my lens. however pinks, pinkish-reds, fuschia and pale-yellows (like white-yellow roses) look quite horrible imo.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2hyictv.jpg
i just hope no one is wearing pink/fuschia at the AO nxt year. anyway these photos were taken before i bought my lens hood and i was using the fully-automatic option (i've forgotten what its called, the green square). i've just resized 2 or 3 of the pics (cant remember which pics tho) and blurred the numbers plates, but other than that the photos are in their original format/s.

and the sun is extremely bad for my lens in the 4th pic, though it could be the photographer (me) taking the photo that casued the photo to look like that :lol:
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8675/img0692o.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/i/img0692o.jpg/)
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4522/img0714s.th.jpg (http://img69.imageshack.us/i/img0714s.jpg/)
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9826/img0712i.th.jpg (http://img130.imageshack.us/i/img0712i.jpg/) (i like these kinds of photos, where there's light and shade, i love the contrast from these kinds of photos
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6435/img0693q.th.jpg (http://img69.imageshack.us/i/img0693q.jpg/) (sun is very bad :()
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/4927/img0707d.th.jpg (http://img685.imageshack.us/i/img0707d.jpg/) (for some reason the trees look really fake)
pic (http://i45.tinypic.com/mjx020.jpg) & imageshack is failing me to upload these pics atm :( (http://i48.tinypic.com/24g50yb.jpg)

im also looking for another bag (i've got the lowpro adventurer 200 i think), anyway kinda short (boring) story to something that happened to me whilst i was waiting to got to the toilets in costco. i was waiting in the line to wash my hands coz i had eaten half a hot dog (shared the other half with my cousin) anyway, my aunt and uncle from the US gave me $100 in an evelope which i had put in the front pocket of my bag, where i keep my manual and CF and its cover. story cut short, when i emerged from the toilets i had realised the zip to the pocket was half unzipped and if that girl/woman would've slipped their fingers into the pocket they could've stolen my money - i didnt know it was $100 til after i realized the bag was unzipped. so now im looking to buy either a loewpro flipside (200,250) which the security of the bag is very appealing to me as you can only open the bag from the back and the lowpro fastpack (200,250 or the 350) which is also quite ideal for me as i can also put other stuff (food bottles of water, wallet, keys, phone, AO guide, etc.) in the bag as well. altho the flipside is pretty much only a camera bag, the majority of the compartments arent adjustable but the fastpack looks very accessible for thieves to steal things from if im waiting in a queue.

also the lens prices is australia is absolutely ridiculous! they really are; its shocking. another well-known, 'reliable' camera store is selling the canon ef 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM lens for $2399. i checked online and its like $250 cheaper if not more cheaper elsewhere online. then again this camera store's prices are a lot more dearer than my local camera store's prices - which are quite pricey as well. tho the cano ef 50mm f/1.8 II ($149) and the canon ef 85mm f/1.8 II USM ($649) seem temtping.then again i havent taken any portraits yet, tho i suppose my camera would be great for portrait-taking. and the canon efs 55-250 IS ($349.95) is temtping too. but i know that they all would be quick-fixes. i sometimes wonder that i shouldnt have bought the 7D and got the 450D instead and bought several good lenses instead like a consumer zoom, a prime and an L lens. im SO obsessed with that red ring, it makes the chrome/silver ring on my lens look so cheap and plastic. where are there gold 'rings' on lens? also is a prime L lens the best type of lens out there in the canon category? i've heard prime's are much better, maybe even 'superior' to professional zooms? apparently prime are much better than zoomz, didnt someone it here? (sorry i've forgotten who it was) it might have been u rix. all the links i had to all those websites that sold the 70-200mm f$ IS (or non-IS as i misread the name or not, i dunno) are gone. so if some happens to find a 70-200mm f/4 IS USM somewhere on the net for LESS than $1000 (which i know is like impossible as its such a good lens) plz let me know and i'll prob buy it. which i'll be adding to my lack of money issues, as i havent bought my ground pass/es yet and now i wanna go watch the semi-finals. the AO is creeping closer and closer as well.


the reviews ppl have written for my lens (18-200mm) is funny. the part in bold is reassuring for my obsession with L lenses' red 'ring' lol. link (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1219/cat/11/date/1187625490)[/COLOR]

Where do I start... This lens gets the most action/time on my camera. Images are clear and color accurate and the zoom range makes it hard to take off. I am a 1:1 ratio person that hates photos that only look good from far. I try for that pixel to pixel perfection that makes my hobby harder, but so much more enjoyable when done right. I don't use or run photos thru photoshop, because a part of me thinks it is cheating (leads me to retake photos often). I suppose someday I will change, but until then, I want a simple and clean photo.


The 18-200mm has surprised me over and over. I have compared it to my L lenses and it keeps up. If you go to Canon's website check out the lens diagram info, the guts of this lens is very, very, very close to the L 24-105mm. I had to check because it was surprising me too often. In real life, I have taken the same shots between the two and find myself checking DPP (Canon's Digital Photo Professional software) to see which lens took which photo. When I test new lenses during an event, the 18-200 goes back on for the rest of the event because it produces GREAT shots and saves time in lens changes and looking like a wannabe pro. The only comparible L lenses I have in this range are the 24-105mm and the 70-200mm, both f4 and with IS. This lens STILL trumps them when it comes to function.


===L Lens Info for new folks:===


Don't get me wrong, there are reasons to own an L lens. Tack sharp clarity may not always be the case. The 24-105 and 70-200 are similar to the other L series lenses, they help take the guesswork out of the shot. If anyone make a lens with well coated glass, low aperture, and supreme motors, the lens no longer part of the challenge with taking photo. The joy of photography is to enjoy it, and if you are in it to make money, then L is the way to make your life easier. For the rest, it is the challenge of getting that perfect shot. The advantage between Pro and Enthusiast is that Pros will come to learn which setting will or will not photograph well. Enthusiasts will be able to see each scene in a mechanical way, a way that they will know which Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO will get the shot the best. It isn't the lens that makes the shot, it's the photographer. But, L lenses make it MUCH easier to not worry about little details. L does mean luxury (not better photos) in the true sense that these type of lenses take out some of the guesswork for photography. I will say again, it isn't the lens that makes the photo -- it is the photographer; more specifically, it is the TIMING and LUCK. Smile

__________________________________________________ _____

I had some bad experience with superzooms before, Sigma 18-200 was very soft, Tamron had a inaccurate focus and was soft at 200mm, sold them after 200-300 pictures.


This lens was a big surprise to me, after the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 70-300IS I was bit worried but ...


Quality:
I like the build quality. It is better then the 70-300, It doesn't feel like it's going to fall apart, no wobbly parts, etc.


IS: is very good, lot better then in the 70-300, the picture doesn't jump when the IS gets activated, and it's quite, virtually unnoticeable. The 70-300 sound like a coffee machine. And this has one stop advantage. ( 4 vs 3 )


IQ:
I was quite surprised how sharp this lens is. I'd say it's comparable with my 17-70 and 70-300. Even at wide open I found the image sharpness ok. Distortion nicely clears out after 24mm and not noticeable after that. Vignetting is bit strong at wide open around 18mm, but it's not an issue for me, most of the case I stop if down and problem solved.


Focus is very accurate and fast on my body ( 350D ), even in low light.


There is a bit compromise(not as much as I thought) but it's worth it, at least for me. I like this lens very much.


If you are looking for a superzoom, don't look further, you found it. If you don't believe check my gallery:


http://picasaweb.google.com/S.Illes79/Philadelphia2

__________________________________________________ _________

Thank for reading.

Click here to see this users profile
Canon-Nikon-user

Registered: December 2008
Posts: 14
Review Date: 12/1/2008 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $500.00| Rating: 10


Pros: the IS in this lens is the most effective IS, sharp at 200mm, good colors.
Cons: CA at wide end , distortion at 18mm, a bit too bulky for what it is.

I highly recommend this lens as a light weight travel lens for all 50D users if you can get it as a part of the 50D kit.


As I got it a part of my 50D kit in Japan , I saved lots of money, I bought my 50D with this lens for about 1300USD, so I think it is a good lens for the price and range.


I had the Sigma OS lens before and I hated it and returned it and I bought a Nikon D300 just for the famous Nikon Af-S18-200VR DX lens and the light weight and fantastically sharp AF-S70-300VR lens and I really loved all of these Nikon gears.

Now , Canon's also got this super zoom , so I wanted to buy it for myself and compare it to my Nikon Af-S18-200Vr , I think the Canon lens is a bit sharper , espeically at 200mm it , but the Nikon lens handles CA at wide end a bit better(even without the D300 in-camera CA control tool).


With the DPP3.51,the Canon lens has no light fall off with my 50D and with the NX2, the Nikon lens has no CA with my D300.


So I think both super zooms are really good for what it is, but 18mm on a 1.6X Canon body is not wide enough , so for a 1.6X Canon ,I usually need a EF-S10-22 with this EF-S18-200IS lens for travel but with my D300 , I just use the 18-200Vr or 16-85Vr with the cheap but sharp AF 85f1.8D and no need wider than the 18mm end of the AF-S18-200Vr or the 16mm end of the AF-S16-85VR , so I prefer traveling with my d300 when I have to travel light.


With that said, this Canon lens is a keeper , and as it is optimized for EF-S sensor cameras , it is quite sharp on my 50D , maybe a bit sharper than the EF-S55-250IS at 200mm(this lens is sharp at 200mm even wide open) , so considering the range and size , it is a good lens , no doubt about it and it is not as slow AF ing as some might think even without the RING USM.


I am more and more using this lens with EF-S10-22 or EF-28f1.8USM and leaving my EF-S17-55f2.8, EF70-200f4LIS and 70-300DO at my home , now I am considering selling my 70-200f4LIS since 200mm is not long enough most of times when I need a tele zoom and the white barrel is really annoying. The L is a very sharp lens though, some times , I need to be inconspicuous.


NOTE: in this digital era , a bit of distortion, color contrast or vignetting is not a serious issue and thus, the most important part of IQ now is resolving power , and thus, it is a great lens for what it is designed to do.


I know many L snobs say this is a junk lens but I guess they never ever shoot in Burma or Cambodia with a white lens , to see how the local people there react to their white Ls.


UPDATE: after posted this one , I read the previous poster's trashing this lens , and I thought he probably never used this lens in real life or he just got a bad copy. In any case , this lens is much better than that , it's AF very fast ,at least as fast as any other consumer grade lens in this price range and actually faster AFing than the Nikon super zoom , which I also have had for about 4 months.
__________________________________________________ __

I highly recommend this lens as a light weight travel lens for all 50D users if you can get it as a part of the 50D kit.


As I got it a part of my 50D kit in Japan , I saved lots of money, I bought my 50D with this lens for about 1300USD, so I think it is a good lens for the price and range.


I had the Sigma OS lens before and I hated it and returned it and I bought a Nikon D300 just for the famous Nikon Af-S18-200VR DX lens and the light weight and fantastically sharp AF-S70-300VR lens and I really loved all of these Nikon gears.

Now , Canon's also got this super zoom , so I wanted to buy it for myself and compare it to my Nikon Af-S18-200Vr , I think the Canon lens is a bit sharper , espeically at 200mm it , but the Nikon lens handles CA at wide end a bit better(even without the D300 in-camera CA control tool).


With the DPP3.51,the Canon lens has no light fall off with my 50D and with the NX2, the Nikon lens has no CA with my D300.


So I think both super zooms are really good for what it is, but 18mm on a 1.6X Canon body is not wide enough , so for a 1.6X Canon ,I usually need a EF-S10-22 with this EF-S18-200IS lens for travel but with my D300 , I just use the 18-200Vr or 16-85Vr with the cheap but sharp AF 85f1.8D and no need wider than the 18mm end of the AF-S18-200Vr or the 16mm end of the AF-S16-85VR , so I prefer traveling with my d300 when I have to travel light.


With that said, this Canon lens is a keeper , and as it is optimized for EF-S sensor cameras , it is quite sharp on my 50D , maybe a bit sharper than the EF-S55-250IS at 200mm(this lens is sharp at 200mm even wide open) , so considering the range and size , it is a good lens , no doubt about it and it is not as slow AF ing as some might think even without the RING USM.


I am more and more using this lens with EF-S10-22 or EF-28f1.8USM and leaving my EF-S17-55f2.8, EF70-200f4LIS and 70-300DO at my home , now I am considering selling my 70-200f4LIS since 200mm is not long enough most of times when I need a tele zoom and the white barrel is really annoying. The L is a very sharp lens though, some times , I need to be inconspicuous.


NOTE: in this digital era , a bit of distortion, color contrast or vignetting is not a serious issue and thus, the most important part of IQ now is resolving power , and thus, it is a great lens for what it is designed to do.


I know many L snobs say this is a junk lens but I guess they never ever shoot in Burma or Cambodia with a white lens , to see how the local people there react to their white Ls.


UPDATE: after posted this one , I read the previous poster's trashing this lens , and I thought he probably never used this lens in real life or he just got a bad copy. In any case , this lens is much better than that , it's AF very fast ,at least as fast as any other consumer grade lens in this price range and actually faster AFing than the Nikon super zoom , which I also have had for about 4 months.
__________________________________________________ ____

This is mainly to respond to the previous review in this series.


...the lens just came out a month ago. How could you have owned it and shot it for 8 months?


I don't own this lens but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...no seriously, I went to a CC and they had it on a 450D there and I took 10 shots with it a few days before reading this review. Then I backed away from it. I would never buy a superzoom that is not sharp at F8 all the way across the frame all the way through the zoom range. This one seems to be ok up to 135mm but trust me that's not nearly good enough. You will end up having to run all your shots through some sort of lens-correction module just to make them even passably-acceptable and they won't stand close inspection even then. And trust me, after doing that for two months with the Nikon 18-200 and the Sigma 18-200DC OS, I can tell you from real experience that it's a true PITA.


I would not even bother shooting this lens much less buying it. The Tamron 18-270VC will be way sharper. At the very least get the A200 and the Tamron 18-250. Or ok don't believe me, buy this lens and get ready to sell it in disgust later.


BTW any AF lens on any Digital Rebel will backfocus more than it should. Put that same lens on a 30d or better and it will probably focus just fine.


update:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/


"UPDATE: after posted this one , I read the previous poster's trashing this lens , and I thought he probably never used this lens in real life or he just got a bad copy. In any case , this lens is much better than that , it's AF very fast ,at least as fast as any other consumer grade lens in this price range and actually faster AFing than the Nikon super zoom , which I also have had for about 4 months."


With regard to the previous post, I also bought the D300 to get out of the Sigma and into the Nikon 18-200 and I found the Nikon to be barely any sharper than the Sigma at F8 and a piece of junk beyond about 120mm but in any case they both need software lens-correction and the Tamron 18-250 and 28-300 don't (I don't know for sure about the Tamron 18-270 never having shot it but I'm pretty-sure it'll be fine without LC). Not to mention the Nikon 18-200VR2 has just ridiculous geometric distortion at the wide-end (and frankly it's still sharper than the 70-300VR). I liked the D300 but I had to get rid of it because I couldn't find a superzoom to go on it that I liked (I shot the D300/18-200VR2 against a Sony a700 with the Tamron 18-250 that just *destroyed* the Nikon combination as long as it was shot in decent light, due to the NR in the Sony that can't be turned off combined with its pathetic body-IS and low-light AF accuracy relative to the Nikon lens-IS and 51p AF with 15 cross-points, an unbeatable combination for low-light shooting), so I ended up gettig the 5D and the Tamron 28-300VC and the rest was history. Even if I had to go back to a subframe now I would stick with Tamron lenses. I've shot the Tamron 28-300VC on a D700 and loved it, and the Tamron 18-250 on an A700 and loved it, I'm looking forward to shooting the new Tamron 18-270VC on a 50D or D300 and the Tamron 28-300VC on a 5DMk2 and the inevitable D700X. You might even convince me to try the old Tamron 28-300 on the new Sony A900. But I'm not going to muck around with a dull superzoom. I can fix geometric distortion, CA, even vignetting (which doesn't bother me so much), there's very little that can be done with a dull, blurry or out-of-focus shot. It's like burnt, stale bread. Best given to the birds.


By the way it's not AF *speed* that matters so much as *accuracy*. One other reason that you really don't want to mess with Digital Rebels. If you need speed use either prefocus or the servo-tracking mode. You definitely need a sharp focus more than speed.



some (VERY OLD) reviews of the 70-200mm f/2.8 & the f/4 (cant remember if they were talking about the IS or non-IS versions of the lenses). part in bold is interesting, then again the 7D only came out recently and the reviews are from like 9 yrs ago.
Stephen Rohrbacher , December 02, 1999; 11:19 A.M.
I have had this lens for 2 months now and am crazy about it. I had the Canon 75-300 non-USM before this and have two years worth of mediocre pictures. Used it recently at my older daughters HS graduation in an auditorium using a 540ez from the balcony and got great results from 50 feet away. Took some more the next day at my youngest daughters dance recital in another auditorium, no flash allowed. I braced myself on the rail, spot metered, and the results were also good, though the dancers blurred in some shots. I highly recommend this lens. (12/2/99: Still love this lens. My wife needed some portraits for her new career in Real Estate, when the rest of the office saw them they wanted theirs done. And all I used was an on camera 540EZ bounced off the ceiling and walls.)
____________________

Bill Mallin , January 11, 2000; 06:56 P.M.
I bought this lens originally thinking that this was going to be a good "all around" lens for fashion. At first, I was very pleased with the images, as they were definitely a step up from the consumer type zooms I used previously. As time went on however, I found that I was much happier with prime lenses like the 50/1.4, the 85/1.8, and the 100/2.0. They focused better in poor light, adding filters wasless costly in terms of money and light loss, and the lightness made photography much more spontaneous and fun. This is really a lens more for a photojournalist.
___________________

Andrew Robertson , September 19, 2004; 08:17 A.M.
I have used the 70-200 f/4L for well over a year now. It's a nice lens, but it isn't perfect. My sample is uniform in its sharpness, and works great, but comparing images shot with it to those shot with the 135mm f/2.8 SF makes me wish I had the 200 f/2.8 instead. The 135 has much better contrast and color saturation, and is sharper to boot! Lately the L has been sitting in the bag, as I use the 135 SF and the 100 USM Macro more and more.

To expect a zoom to outperform a prime is expecting too much, though. For what it is, it's great! I would recommend this lens to anyone who would be able to appreciate a finely crafted but inexpensive tele zoom. I wouldn't recommend it to someone spoiled on primes, though. The 135 f/2.8 SF, for less than half the price, is a much better performer!
________________

Mike Nunan , October 22, 2002; 09:38 A.M.
I have recently acquired a brand new 70-200 f/4 IS, and I'm rather shocked by its tendency to flare. I set up a shot on Saturday where the model stood in front of a skylight-type window, which offered a view across the building's roof (it was actually a converted church) with the top of a tree occupying most of the background. The tree was being side-lit by direct sunlight, and was fairly bright. The difference between the inside and outside ambient lighting was probably around 3-4 stops, and I was planning to use a little fill-flash to balance the lighting. However, the flare in the viewfinder was so severe that I immediately switched back to a prime lens. Looking at Evrim's fine image above, I cannot imagine my lens dealing with this situation successfully. Obviously the IS lens contains many more elements than the old 80-200, but this result does seem a bit extreme. Is this normal or is my lens likely to be a lemon?
___________________

Andrew Grant , December 29, 2001; 10:57 P.M.
I have the 70-200/F4. Aside from being much lighter than the other two it is also much cheaper. Phil did not mention cost issues in his comparison. The F4 version costs less than $600 with rebate, the F2.8 is over $1,100, and the 2.8 IS is around $1,800. For the difference in price between the F4 and the 2.8, I could buy a nice portrait lens or even the 100/2.8 macro. For the difference in price between the F4 and the F2.8 IS, I could buy the 300/F4 IS prime.

I use the F4 on a D30 body. At 200mm (320 effective) out of focus backgrounds are not a problem. However, in low light AF can be. I currently use a 50/1.4 (80mm on the D30) as a low light portrait lens. When Canon has a full frame digital, I will need that portrait lens.
____________________

Susan Butler , May 26, 2001; 12:48 A.M.
I just added the 70-200mm f/2.8L to my collection. Most of my photographic shots are of motorcycles and people as you can see above. This shot is one of my favorites.

After seeing the results of my first 5 rolls of motocross photos (not shown), I am convinced that the quality of this lens is superior to that which I was using (Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM) along with my Canon A2. For whatever reason, the 28-135mm was not as sharp as my previous 35-85mm (bought with the Rebel XS in '94 as my first camera). It didn't matter if I was using a filter or not, the images never seemed to be as clear as I had been able to obtain repeatedly with a different lens.

Opting for the 70-200mm range was perfect for the typical distance between me and the bikes and of course, I have noticed the weight (I only weigh 125 lbs so this lens is a boat anchor for me to haul around) but I think this means I should start working out for the long hot dusty weekends at the race tracks!

I love this lens and now, will be using it with my Canon EOS 1V HS for more motorcycle action. I had no difficulties with my A2 & this lens regarding AF and I suspect the performance will be even better with the 1V.

More photos will soon be available on http://www.butler22.com from my new 1V and 70-200mm combo (with and without Canon EF 2X Extender).
__________________

Michael Giuliani , April 24, 2000; 06:37 P.M.
Pictures with Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM EX .
Canon or Sigma? What is the dilemma!? For as long as I have been involved in this beautiful hobby I noticed that one of the hardest aspects of it, it is buying the right equipment. There is a lot of good products out there that make the choice even harder. To discuss now about the two lenses mentioned (Canon 70-200L USMf2.8 and Sigma HSM 70-200 EX f2.8), after the experience I have had with both of them, I ended up buying a Sigma. Why? I mainly shoot action sports (motocross, desert racing, and horse jumping) to sell pictures, and everything else for stock. The two lenses perform vrtually the same. AF speed is critical in the sports I shoot, and the two AF motors HSM and USM are equally fast. If AF speed is a concen, and you own any Canon below the EOS 3 and want to buy the Canon USM lens, don't be a fool! Buy the Sigma, save the difference in cost, and upgarde your camera body ... it is the camera that auto-focus, not the lens. The lens has only the motor, and as I mentiond above the HSM and USM motors are equally fast (don't tell me that the USM is 1 nanosecond faster, please!) Image quality ... well, it is probably the same and maybe the Sigma is slightly better. Construction ... the Canon feels stronger, but it is just a feeling that you are getting because of its metal barrel. Keep in mind that the paint on the Canon will chip a lot easier than the one on the Sigma. They are both very well sealed against dust and to me this is a concern, since I shoot in very dusty places(Desert,sand,dirt traks). If you drop it is only important to know how lucky you are!(Either lens will suffer equally) Price ... well, Sigma wins big time by being cheeper. Resale ... they will sell fast because they are both excellent lenses in great demand, and the depriciation is proportionally equal. In conclusion, both are excellent lenses that can produce equally excellent pictures that you could sell even to National Geographic or Sports Illustrated (the only limit would be your own ability to take great pictures). I have choosen the Sigma because it makes more sense to me! I had the money for a Canon, but I saved the difference to buy other equipment. I hope this will help you in your research. Photography is about taking great pictures, and the ability of the person behind the camera that makes it happen! Yes, the right equipment is important, but don't buy a "white" lens because it will make you look like a pro ... work on your skills, not on your look. Good luck!


im just hoping the post-christmas sales significantly bring down the prices of ALL lenses. altho i have a feeling i might succumb into a 'quick-fix' (crappy) sigma or tamron lens when its like a week before the MD of the AO starts. soz for rambling for the majority of this post lol. i hope i've given u a few tidbits on the 7D, rix, and whether u want to buy it or not. and i'd love to know what utr thoughts of the 7D are when u've had a chance to use it durings the holidays and plz do post some photos here (including what type of lens u used).

Langers
Dec 21st, 2009, 02:01 PM
I'm going to go for some kind of Cannon post Christmas.

Rix643
Dec 21st, 2009, 05:53 PM
Thanks for your reaction, bad angel!

First let me tell you that as soon as I posted my previous message, I got a call from the shop asking if I wouldn't try a 7D earlier. I didn't mind, so made an appointment to pick one up the next Monday. In short: went to the shop, got back home, put on my main lens (the 70-200 2.8 non-IS), tried to apply focus adjustment (wasn't necessary BTW), took a couple of test shots, examined them on my screen, took a couple of extra shots, mounted my 30D, again some shots, some more examination then hurried back to the shop and bought the camera (and also the grip).
Amazing piece of equipment........... I never knew my lens was THAT sharp...... Even with a 2x extender I got pretty amazing pictures. Also the AF system is so much better than the 30D's. More accurate and much quicker. And I love the improvement I got when shooting at high ISO.
The 1Dmk4 has probably better IQ and even faster AF, but for the way I use the camera it doesn't justify a price tag three times higher than the 7D's (not for now anyway). Besides, I like the extra 'zoom' the 1.6 crop gives over a 1.3 crop.
But for now there is a lot to discover on the 7D with all the extra features and stuff (I still have to try out live view and filming). Thus far the only thing I didn't like that much is the file size. A large RAW picture shot at 3200 ISO takes up around 30MB of precious storage memory. A 4GB card fills up rather quickly this way.
Unfortunately I don't have any pictures to post yet (the test shots I threw away), except for one I posted here earlier, a quick shot of the wheather conditions we had to suffer here recently.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/Rix643/WTAWorld/IMG_0235_1.jpg

Shot in large RAW, Av-mode, ISO 400, F/11, 1/50".Lens: EF 16-35 2.8L II (truly not one of the sharpest pieces of L-glass available, but as good as a wide-angle zoom can get).
Afterwards I used PS to adjust colors, brightness and contrast, and finally applied the Unsharp Mask before resizing and saving as JPG (and deleted the original.... :()


Are you sure you took the picutures you posted in green mode? I examined the EXIF and all of them had Av as Exposure Program instead of Normal, which means the green mode.
Pictures #1 and #4 were shot wide-open, ie F/5.6 with an ISO of 6400. The camera used the fastes shutter speed possible, which is 1/8000" and still wasn't short enough to reduce that mass of light coming in. Result: over-exposed. Solution: lower your ISO. A correct lit exposure with above settings would require a shutter speed of 1/125" when using ISO-100. In case of your pictures (and I'm guessing an over-exposure by 2 stops) the camera would have used a shutter speed of 1/500".
The fifth picture (Av, ISO-100, F/4.5, 1/400") has got the white balance setting at manual, which may have caused some unnatural colors. Also the metering mode is set to pattern, which takes an average of the entire frame. Considering the fact that the center of the picture (the streetcar) is rather bright compared to the darker left side, you risk over-exposure of the center part (which, IMO, also is the case here). I did some quick alterations on this one with PS: I adjusted the color balnce for the dark regions (a bit more towards red and green) and I added a bit more contrast while reducing the brightness a tiny bit. I didn't use a calibrated monitor, and it's all done by eye which means personal taste has a big influence.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/Rix643/WTAWorld/th_img0707d.jpg (http://s173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/Rix643/WTAWorld/?action=view&current=img0707d.jpg)


Bags, it's a matter of personal taste I reckon. I prefer bags to carry as much as needed in an as comfortable way as possible. At the moment I use a Naneu pro Urban Gear 120 (a backpack), but it's getting too small......

Nothing beats a good prime, mainly because they're designed to handle a single focus length, although the top L-zooms equals good non-L grade primes. But nothing compares to a L-series prime (the 200 2.0L IS USM... :drool:).
AFAIK, Sigma and Tamron use gold rings, and Canon sometimes to designate USM lenses (esp. on EF-S lenses).
But if the prices will drop after the holidays....

bad_angel_109
Dec 27th, 2009, 01:58 PM
^ u got the 7D, its a pretty good camera dont u think? anyway, im hoping since now u've got the same camera as me u can give me a few handy tips and useful advice? :)

its late and my internet still doesn't work (at my cousin's house now, leaving soon too) so i'll make this as to-the-point i can. i've been jumping on other people's computers and ravaging the internet on the limited time they allow me to use their computer for information/reviews/prices, etc. regarding 2 lenses im considering atm (100mm f/2.8 IS USM Marco and the 70-200mm f/4 IS USM). there's about a $100, give or take a bit, price difference between the two lenses. amazon seems to have the cheapest price for a new lens ($USD1132.55) although the approx. average ('reasonable') price tag for this lens is around $1132-$1150 and up! i've been reading lots of reviews (mainly amazon/adorama) customer reviews on both lenses. each have pros and cons.

a few reviews of the 700-200mm f/4 IS USM lens. bits in bold are interesting
These are two wonderful lens. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Lets start with the f/4 IS. You have great IS capable of shooting sharp images up to to four stops without a tripod. However, you will not be able to stop the action in low light because of the F/4 aperture. IS fixes the shakes from your hands, it has no effect of freezing action in low or dim light. You could raise your ISO, but then you have to worry about noise. The weight of the F/4 will be much more comfortable around your neck than the f/2.8 because it weighs almost half as much. The price of the f/4 is another factor. Its around $500.00 bucks cheaper.
The f/2.8 IS is a beast that will produce fantastic images but you are going to pay a price for it. It's heavy and you need to have deep pockets. On the other hand if sports is your thing and creating fantastic images with great bokeh than why not splurg and get what you really want. Are you shooting indoor sports? You should probably consider the f/2.8. Either way you are going to spend some money and you might as well get the one that is going to fit your needs. To sum up if you are shooting indoor sports i would go with the 2.8. If not the f/4 will not dissappoint you.
_______________________

3/5 stars I'm just rating what I received., December 20, 2009 (http://www.amazon.com/review/R3QD3TY2FPPCU1/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3QD3TY2FPPCU1)
By B. Kwan

I ordered this lens new from an online merchant recently and after taking it out to shoot for one day, I've found that it performs remarkably- when it performs.

I am not rating the 70-200 F/4L IS in general, but rather the one that I received. I thought about not writing a review just so that the raving 5star reviews wouldn't be skewed but I thought this might be helpful for people who thought it might be too good to be true that nobody got a lemon. It'd be unfair for me to choose to only write a great review just because everyone else did, ignoring the flaws that mine came with.

The lens that I got seemed to be a lemon (which speaks of Canon's quality control). I tried focusing to infinity manually (tried on both MF and AF) and it just wasn't getting there. It would rotate from Macro all the way up to about 3/4ths of the way to infinity and it would stop. I put on the lens cap and pressed the shutter halfway to see if it did what it's supposed to do (try to focus from Macro to Infinity) but again, it would never reach infinity. In fact, when it was rotating towards infinity, it would get stuck and make a scratchy noise. The zoom would also sometimes not turn all the way to 70mm, but if I messed with the focus ring a little bit, the zoom ring would work again. One time it got to the point where the focus ring wouldn't change the area of focus at all.

The reason why I gave this any stars at all was because I'm giving it 3 stars because it did perform well a couple times and when it did, the image quality as far as saturation, contrast and sharpness were fantastic. Expected better quality control for an L lens so I took off 2 stars. I've returned this lens and bought another copy. When it comes, I will give an update to this review.

(1st)review is interesting, i found. 2nd was the most critical of the lens

241 of 243 people found the following review helpful:
5/5 stars Worth every pennies, December 8, 2006
By NutMac "NutMac" (Mountain View, CA)

With over 100 lenses produced for Canon EOS system, finding the right lenses can overwhelm even the experienced photographers. My search for walkaround lens took over two months of research and auditioning. After choosing Canon's EF 17-40mm f/4L USM as a walkaround lens and EF 50mm f/1.4 USM as a portrait lens, my attention shifted toward telephoto. A bit of background info. My current DSLR body is Digital Rebel XTi (EOS 400D). I plan on upgrading to full frame DSLR body next, so I only look at EF lenses (no EF-S) with solid build quality (it needs to be around to serve the next camera).

At first, finding a telephoto lens seemed almost as easy as portrait lens. Professional reviewers alike hail EF 70-200mm f/4L USM for top-notch build quality and superb optical performance at a reasonable price. (EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM are too heavy, large, and expensive for my needs.) 70-200mm focal range is just about ideal for me, which becomes 112-320mm in 35mm print format. I took many fantastic pictures with it, but quickly found a problem. Without a tripod, telephoto isn't easy to shoot. With 17-40mm lens, I can take well-focused images shot after shot. Even under challenging light, I can hit fairly high percentage of photos without flash. At 200mm, situations get considerably trickier. Under very good lighting, I can take one great looking photo after another. Under somewhat limited light, however, I found myself with rather high percentage of out-of-focus photos. Increasing the ISO speed helped a good deal, but even that has a limit. Eventually, I found myself depending on the tripod for reliable results.

Then I saw EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. At nearly twice the price tag, I was very reluctant at first. Then I was given the opportunity to play with it in person. To my surprise, it weighs and sized about the same as non-IS counterpart. And it has super-state-of-the-art 4-stop (!) image stabilizer with panning mode and tripod detection. After selling EF 70-200mm f/4L USM at a minimal loss (L-series lenses tend to have very high resale value), I saved up for IS.

Weighing in at 1.68 lbs., it is only slightly heavier than non-IS and about half as heavy as f/2.8 counterparts. At 3" width and 6.8" length, it is also considerably smaller than f/2.8. Even on comparatively small Digital Rebel XTi, it does not feel entirely out of place. Thanks to inner focus, the lens does not extend nor rotate during focusing or zooming. It stays at 6.8" at all time. As to be expected, its ring-type USM with full-time manual override is silky smooth and fast.(BA: i heard some ppl had 'issues' with their USM being loud and grinding sort of a noise) Simply a pleasure to use.

The lens has 4 switches, (1) focus limiter (sets minimum focus distance of 1.2m or 3m... a bit far in my opinion, but then again, this is a telephoto lens), (2) auto/manual focus, (3) image stabilizer, and (4) stabilizer mode (regular mode 1 or panning mode 2). The image stabilizer is simply fantastic. As with other image stabilizer, it is not effective at stopping subject in motion. Once IS is switched on, it kicks in with a satisfying click when you press the shutter button half way. Click all the way and you may be able to say goodbye (at least see you later) to tripod.

So how does it perform? The sharpness is simply amazing, almost as sharp as my benchmark EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens from center-to-edge. All in all, images were even better than non-IS counterpart, with smooth and more vibrant color, no noticeble barrel distortion, vignetting, nor chroma aberrations.

Also noteworthy is new circular aperture blades (8 of them), creating prettiest blur effects (bokeh) you will ever see. Thanks to Super Spectra coatings, it is even better at suppressing flare than non-IS and f/2.8 counterparts. Simply put, this is one of the most state-of-the-art zoom lenses Canon has produced.

As with other L-series lenses, it comes with a carrying pouch and a lens hood. It accepts 67mm filters.

Pros:
- 4-stop image stabilizer.
- Not too heavy. Not too large.
- Amazing build quality.
- Great image quality with very nice bokeh.
- Top-notch focus mechanism.

Cons:
- Expensive.
- IS will use more battery.
- f/4 aperture may not be fast enough for some.
_______________________

312 of 313 people found the following review helpful:
5/5 stars, Image quality king of the 70-200mm line., November 26, 2007
By Jesse R. Hunter

I have owned at one point or another all Canon's 70-200mm's with exception of the f/2.8 non-IS, along with a decent amount of other Canon L glass. Hence this review will be from the perspective of someone who may be deciding whether or not to add this piece of glass to their matured L collection or someone who is deciding on this lens versus another 70-200mm. If you are instead someone who has already decided on this lens and is looking for one last push to click the buy button, consider this, and the 25 reviews below it, as your green light.

First up, let's talk about the obvious good. This lens carries with it the most advanced IS drive to date, yielding an incredible 4-stops of stabilization. In real life, it is infact four full stops of stabilization. No kidding. For non-moving subjects, this lens becomes an effective 70-200mm f/1.4 as far as handholdability is concerned. When there is subject movement, however, realize that f/4 is still your true aperture and motion blur will be inherent.

As for the not-so-obvious good, this 70-200mm version has the highest image quality out of any of the other 70-200mm's. CA, vignetting, and sharpness is the best with this lens. Lens weight and balance is also the best in comparison to what it offers: it's only slightly heavier than the f/4 with all that IS goodness and not even close to as heavy as the f/2.8 IS with it's one-stop advantage.

The Bad. I always try to find something I dislike with each lens. For some L lenses, it gets tough and I have to get picky, such as with the 135mm f/2L or the 180mm F/3.5L. This lens sits in that catagory. I would have to say I dislike the non-petal shaped lens hood. Yep. That's about it. Wish I could say more here. For the price, this really is a superior buy.

Let's do some comparing.

Against the 70-200mm f/4L: The 'baby' of the 70-200mm line, it's half the price. So is the IS drive worth the ~500 bucks? Well to answer that question, you must realize the limitation of f/4. F/4 usually means sharp glass that's lightweight and cheap, of good value. But it also means more than enough light for sunny days, but never enough for cloudy days, indoors, just after dusk, just before sunrise, during inclement whether, or any other time when shooting conditions are optimal for great pictures. So do you plan on using this lens without a tripod (or flash) ever during these times? If you answer yes (even if you didn't, you will), you might become frustrated with the f/4 non-IS version over time and seek to upgrade, or continuously pack a tripod for which you will also need to buy the lens tripod ring. (Do realize however, that neither the f/4 non-IS or the f/4 IS will serve you well when it comes to indoor action. (sounds REALLY bad for the AO, sunny day-time its fine, melbourne's pretty much always sunny and HOT! but shit upper tier seats in rod laver arena, imo VERY BAD! the spotlights glare/flare [whatever u want to call it] is so TERRIBLE!) For that, you'll have to move up the chain to the f/2.8.) From my personal experience, the f/4 IS also delivers an increased dynamic range near the highlights, slightly more saturation, and slightly less CA in comparison to the f/4 non-IS.

The f/2.8L non-IS: I have never owned this lens, so I can only speak by stats and offer a little limited advice. They are both nearly equal in price, so let's talk about the differences. The f/2.8 is built better (more metal and sealing) and comes with a tripod ring (plus that envious petal-shaped hood). It shares the weather sealed mount and near-equal image quality (the f/4 IS is slight sharper). And you of course gain a stop in aperture but lose IS. So which is better? Since stat-wise they are so close, I would ask what your intentions are. Are you primarily a landscape photographer or an event photographer? More pictures of your kids or more of slow-moving objects. Both lenses do low-light well, it's just that if your shots have little moving in them, you are much better off with the f/4 and to use a flash when the shots do include movement. If your shots almost always include a lot of movement, go with the f/2.8 (but you should really consider the f/2.8 IS).

The f/2.8 IS. The moving versus non-moving distinction is so important that I actually ended up owning BOTH the f/2.8 IS and the f/4 IS. Why? Because the f/2.8 IS is the strongest contender for low-light event work out of the 70-200 line, yet offers the worst in image quality. The image quality difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8 is nothing short of significant. You simply do not use the f/2.8 to generate fine art as it's image quality does not allow it (in my spoiled rotten opinion. In fact, until the f/4 IS came along, I didn't think any of the 70-200's were suitable for this task.) So I utilize the f/2.8 for event work and the f/4 for everything else I need a 70-200mm zoom for. As a side note, the f/2.8 maintains a 3 stop IS drive while the f/4 maintains a 4 stop drive. This means both lenses maintain the same effective 70-200mm f/1.4 aperture. Add all this up, and my recommendation is to go with the 70-200mm f/4 IS and save ~$550 (i dont get it, except for the save $550 part lol) unless you are a professional wedding, model, or event photographer, or if you consistently shoot family or moving objects in low light.

Another comparison: the 135mm f/2L. Roughly the same price, this lens maintains an ultra fast aperture with superior image quality at a loss of versatility. The 70-200mm f/4 IS behaves better with the 1.4x extender. These two lenses tie a lot when it comes to choosing a lens to pack. Basically, if I know exactly the type of shooting environment I'll be walking into (that maintains room for sneaker zooming) and recognize the need for superior bokeh, maximum image quality, or fast shutter speeds, then the 135 it is. Otherwise, I'll pack the 70-200 f/4 IS. If you are deciding between this lens and the 135 for purchase, choose the 135 if your main intention is for portraiture, still life, or low-light arena photography (football, moster trucks, tennis, etc).

The 70-200mm F/4 IS is basically your go-to lens for day hikes, airshows (with 1.4x extender, or unless you own a 300mm f/4 or better), fireworks, any landscaping in low (and therefore good) light, and anything else in which your camera will act as if it's been secured to a tripod while you take a 4-stop stabilized shot.

Due to it's heavy usage as a landscape lens, I have attached a B+W polarizer (67mm filter size) and just left it on. I advise using only the best filters for this lens, don't ruin its image quality with some el cheapo filter.

Other:
-The exterior casing from the zoom ring back to the mount is actually hard plastic. It still feels nice and reduces the weight. The rest of the lens exterior is the typical L-grade metal.
-The lens does not come with a nice case. A Lowepro 4s case is recommended.
-The IS drive is one of the quietest I've heard yet. Almost silent.

Conclusion: An absolute great value as far as L glass goes. A joy to use for photographers new to IS and an attraction for professionals dissapointed with the image quality and weight of the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS, whom may be looking to round out their event photography with landscape work. If you are completely unsure of what you might run into in the field and need the most general setup you can achieve, packing this lens with the 24-70mm or the 24-105mm is all you need.
______________________

68 of 70 people found the following review helpful:
5/5 stars. Expensive but worth the money, November 29, 2006
By PJ (GTA, Canada)
Like used Honda's and Acura's, this Canon lens is destined to command a high resale dollar.

I traded in my Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM lens for this new lens. The colour of this lens is a slightly darker off-white (almost gray-white) than the non-IS version. So, if you have an older Canon Tripod Mount Ring A (W), you may see a slight colour mismatch. Personally, not a big deal by any means. The instruction manual illustrates and refers to their new Canon Ring-Type Tripod Mounting Socket A II (W) which I have not seen in colour to see if it is an exact colour match for this lens. Mated to my tripod mounted Canon Digital Rebel XT set at ISO 100, the lens appeared sharper than the non IS version from f/4 through to f/18 for the majority of it's focal length. For this particular lens, optimum images were obtained at f/7.1 at 70mm and f/9 at the other focal lengths. Flare is better controlled than the non IS version. Bokeh has improved with the new round eight aperture leaves. Colour and contrast have dramatically improved with the new UD glass.

With the Image Stabilization (IS) activated on Mode 1, there were more useable images taken at 4 stops below the usual minimum recommended settings at all focal lengths.
According to Canon Canada, the IS DOES NOT automatically shut off like Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, Super Telephoto and Diffractive Optic lenses. But, the battery will continue to drain while the IS is on as per the instruction manual.(someone PLZ explain this to me) Because I could not find any third party substitutes, I recommend purchasing their expensive Canon tripod collars in either white or black. It optimally structurally stabilizes the lens/camera assembly. For weight reduction, you can always remove the collar. This lens and the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM lens mounted on my Canon 5D is all I need to capture almost all of my images.

A word of caution: check each lens for foreign particles between the front and adjacent lens elements. (after reading this and 'lemon' lenses, i am very wary of buy a lens on the internet w/o actually seeing it firsthand first) I saw one lens with a large piece of something stuck onto the element immediately behind the front element.
____________

I wanted an IS lens that I could use for action photography, mainly tennis matches. This is a great choice. I can pan out enough to make sure I catch the action, yet get sharp enough focus to get detail when I crop, even at a high shutter speed.
____________

Great optics, yet a real workhorse.

By Flyguy from Wheaton, IL

About Me Hobbyist/Enthusiast

Pros: Consistent Output, Durable, Quick Focus, Rugged, Sharp Focus, Strong Construction

Cons: Heavy (i know its 'light' compared to the 2.8 but still its heavy nonetheless IMO. at i'll be at the tennis everyday for AT LEAST 12 hours in god only knows how bloody hot it will be. i guess the average was about 37-38 degrees this year. RLA gets up to 62 degrees on court. we've recently be told that we're (victoria) in for the hottest summer yet with heat waves and fire bans and wat not. im afraid i wont last more than 2 hrs(?) carrying a hot, sweaty 760g lens attached to my camera + lens hood in 40 degree heat.)

Best Uses: General Use, Sports/Action
___________

Great lens (5/5)
By fling1946Verified Reviewer from Atlanta, GA on 8/4/2009
Pros:
Consistent Output, Easily Interchangeable, Lightweight, Quick Focus, Sharp Focus, Strong Construction
Best Uses:
General Use, Special Effects, Sports/Action, Wildlife
Describe Yourself:
Professional
Bottom Line:
Yes, I would recommend this to a friend

Comments about Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens, USA:

Very Sharp lens, excellent for candid photos at weddings and doing Portraits, this lens is also great for photgraphing wildlife from a distance. The IS feature is very helpful while shooting in low light, but not night photography; because of this I sometimes wish I had bought the 70-200 IS 2.8L; though that lens has much more weight and cost about $800.00 more. Setting a side night shooting I have no complaints about this lens.

Worth every penny (5/5)
By Kool KatVerified Buyer from Stratford, CT on 7/8/2009 (5/5)
Pros:
Consistent Output, Durable, Easily Interchangeable, Lightweight, Quick Focus, Rugged, Sharp Focus, Strong Construction
Best Uses:
Sports/Action, Upgrade, Wildlife
Describe Yourself:
Hobbyist/Enthusiast
Bottom Line:
Yes, I would recommend this to a friend

Comments about Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens, USA:

Having two other L series lenses (17-40 and 24-105) I knew what to expect. However, I was somewhat tempted by the 70-300 DO primarily for its size, although the fact that it wasn't white was a consideration - especially for use overseas. But after many hours checking reviews online, it became apparent that the tradeoff for smaller size and lower visibility was poorer performance. The great reviews of the 70-200 were confirmed by the test shots I took as soon as I opened the box.


Do not go past this piece of glass! (5/5 stars)
By GaryVerified Reviewer from Melbourne Australia on 6/24/2009 (5/5 stars)
Pros:
Consistent Output, Durable, Easily Interchangeable, Quick Focus, Rugged, Sharp Focus, Strong Construction
Cons:
Heavy but manageable
Best Uses:
General Use, Potraiture, Sports/Action, Wildlife
Describe Yourself:
Semi-Professional
Bottom Line:
Yes, I would recommend this to a friend


100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro. i am NOT quite fond of the fact that i will have to walk back and forth to get the 'perfect' picture.
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM

5/5 stars Everything you might expect, IS behaves well, November 10, 2009
By Todd Seager "Electronics kid" (Provo, UT USA)

I wasn't certain this lens would be a good value or choice for an APS-C camera. Having recently purchased a 7D, I felt the focal length might be too long, but didn't want the EF-S 60mm macro, when I expect to purchase a body with a full-frame sensor in a couple years. For anyone considering a 100mm Macro, I'm 6x6" tall, and was able to squeeze in an 8x11" sheet of paper on the floor, while standing with my 20D.

I evaluated the EF 100mm Macro and this lens side-by-side. The older 100mm Macro has a great reputation. From the specifications, you'll see that the new lens is slightly longer, and weighs more. The build quality is excellent and consistent with an L lens. Optics are precise. Color and Bokeh are outstanding, as review samples attest.

Auto focus and manual focus are smooth and deliberate. As with other Macros, the focus is precise, but moves slower than a standard telephoto lens of the same focal length. It takes approximately 2.5 seconds to focus from infinity to .3m. It takes approximately 3.0 seconds to focus from .3m to infinity, as the mechanism delays .5 seconds when autofocus is initiated.

The focusing limiter selector switch functions well, eliminating the time to focus, if you know your subject will be between .3m to .5m, or .5m to infinity. The ranges offer a good compromise between focusing element travel and practical subject distances. .3m to .5m represents a 180 degree turn of the focusing ring, and .5m to infinity represents about a 150 degree turn of the focusing ring.

I purchased this lens over the older 100mm Macro for the image stabilization. The image stabilization allows the hand held use of the lens under brighter lighting conditions. The image stabilization certainly behaves differently from other L lenses at 100mm. Telephoto IS may allow you to pan, this lens does not. Better shots will be obtained with IS on while tracking a moving subject; however, IS on this lens is no substitute for a telephoto with panning IS ability. The new IS technology does seem better suited for macro shots than earlier IS techonlogy. The subject seems to "stick" on this lens, as compared with images that seem to "float" with other IS lenses.

IS compensates for movement quite well, but I will shoot low-light subjects on a tripod. With IS on and and shooting at 2.8, the depth of field is extremely shallow. Any movement toward or away from the subject will result in an out-of-focus image. My 1.6 sensor certainly exacerbates the problem. If you need to obtain a more adequate depth of field, you must shoot at 8.0 or above, which will require longer shutter times under low lighting.

Outdoors, this lens will provide unique opportunities in allowing one to complete hand-held shots of bright-lit subjects, especially if you have a full-frame sensor.
______________

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5/5 stars, One of the Sharpest Lens in Canon's Lineup, November 25, 2009
By Electric Boogaloo "RG" (Norman, OK USA)

I am an occasional macro shooter who mostly does portraits at this focal length of 100mm. So why did I get this lens instead of the non-image stabilized 100mm macro for $600 instead and use other dedicated lenses like the 85 f/1.8 or 70-200 f/2.8L? There are a number of reasons:

1. The image stabilization is of the latest generation and compensates for nearly 4-stops in which angular movement or pitch is compensated for. The effect of this is that it is incredibly sharp for portraits wide open at f/2.8 in comparison to the standard macro 100mm f/2.8 or a heavier lens like the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. The files coming from a 5DMkII are absolutely amazing in sharpness.
2. Contrast and bokeh are excelleny and pleasing to the eye. The background blur is superior to the 100 f/2.8 non image stabilized macro.
3. Relatively light weight at 625g makes it easy to carry and balance. It beats carrying the 70-200 when you don't need it. It is also lighter than the Nikon 105mm f/2.8VR and has a better MTF performance.
4. The AF is somewhat faster than the standard 100mm macro and very quiet.
5. The build quality is worthy of an "L" lens. Although its made of engineering plastic, Canon made the right decision to keep its weight low.

The only drawback I can see with this lens is price. If you wait around, sometimes Amazon has had it for $1000, but I think its more appropriately priced at $850-$900. At the end of the day, this is fun lens which is hard to put down. If you can get this lens for $1000, then just do it, and you won't regret it for a second. As I said before, the files coming from this lens are absolutely beautiful and makes me look like a better photographer than I actually am. its actually a bit more than $100 cheaper than the 70-200mm f/4 IS USM)
________________

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4/5 stars Wonderful Pictures, (not quite perfect function), December 23, 2009
By M. Grygg "M" (SLC, Utah)

To start off, this lens deserves 5 stars on outstanding picture quality alone. I currently own the 70-200 F/2.8 IS, the 50mm 1.4 and now the 100mm L Macro. I was always weary of reviewers that say primes are the only way to go....but after 3 different 70-200mm lens's, I am learning why. The zooms have a niche, but PQ is alway better on my primes. That being said...

I really really like this lens. It re-inspires me to get out and take pictures; it is fun all over again. The color contrast is just the way you like it. The bokeh, as others have mentioned, is very smooth in transition (see my sample pictures). The lens is made of a newer plastic barrel, but it is far from the cheaper non L variety. It is very acceptable for its size. I hear the IS isn't very useful up close and personal. It is my opinion that it is VERY useful for everyday real world applications. I was shooting baby pictures in very low light from 7 inches away, and most my pictures were keepers (of course I positioned myself to be stable). The IS is very quiet and smooth. I think it is worth the money.

There is a reason I gave it 4 stars. I have noticed on several occasions that the auto focus travels and doesn't lock. This only seems to happen in low light and on objects that aren't dynamic, for example baby pictures (smooth skin, no hard lines). However, for this price, it shouldn't happen as much as it has. I have had this lens for about a month and I think it is my favorite, no wait, it IS MY FAVORITE. I will update my review as I get the opportunity to judge it on true macro work, bugs, plants etc. I cannot compare it to the former 100mm, but so far, I don't think I would go without the IS. I just find that I need it more often than I don't.

Hope this helps. If you can afford it, this will be one of your favorites too.
_________________

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4/5 stars Excellent Lens but IS not a cure-all, December 22, 2009
By Michael D. Newcomer "Photography Junkie" (Xenia, OH United States)

I upgraded to this lens from the EF 100mm 2.8 non-IS Macro. As others have stated, the IS with this lens is not a cure-all. Extreme macros (especially with extension tubes) will still have to be done on a tripod. I have been able to get keeper shots hand held with anything over about 2 ft. Others may have more luck closer as I am pretty shaky.

I've used it a couple of times for portraits, and I have to say it's beautiful. The bokeh is velvety smooth and the sharpness, color and contrast are just outstanding! Much better even than some of my other "L" lenses and well worth the upgrade from the non-IS version.

My main reason for buying this lens is nature/flower/insect macros. Once we actually have bright sunlight again (it's Winter now) I have no doubt I'll be getting the sharpest flower macros I've ever gotten hand-held. I'll update on that later.


its now past 1.31am. clearly have over-stayed and need to (try) and wake up in several hrs to go to the gym :( but im thinking of buying the lowpro fast pack 250. it has two compartments - one top (for personal items and food, etc.) and the bottom for camera and camera gear. its got 2 zippers for each compartment (good to know its got security of the gear covered) [late, tired not making much sense lol] and since thinking about the flipeside coz u open it from the back but its 'purely' a camera bag imo. still intensively searching for lens and camera and general backpacks. and rix, i dunno if u've been to the AO if if cellophone's been, but the lights at RLA, ESPECIALLY at night (duh) or if the roof is closed, are bright. VERY bright and SO MUCH glaring/flaring its almost unbelievable!! the outside courts (like the showcourts and MCA) are ok, but still dull and lots of glare/flare, and not bright enough probably for a 70-200mm f/4 lens. and wouldnt my 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens have bit of an 'advantage' over the 70-200mm f/4 IS because its got half a stop (or aperture, watever its called) down/up over the 70-200?? i dunno.

these 1st question sounds silly i sound but im serious. and these questions are open to ANYONE (with DSLR camera/lenses experience) to answer. does would my lens (18-200) have the EXACT same focal length as the 70-200? call it ignorance, but i was kidly secretly hoping the 70-200 had a few extra mm over my 18-200. IMHO it sounds a bit silly to buy and own a consumer zoom and a professional L zoom with the exact same local lengths. obviously the L lens is better than my lens i know.

2nd question: if u could only buy (and only had enough money for) ONE lens out of the 100mm f/2.8 IS USM PRIME lens or the 70-200mm f/4 IS USM L lens, what would YOU buy and WHY?. im nit-picking but i dont like the 'walking back and forth' of the prime lenses to get the right focus or whatever it is u get when u do that. and i dont like the white/"off-grey, off-white" of the 70-200 L lens. and its heavy, i read that the 100mm f/2.8 IS USM's AF takes about 2.5 seconds to focus and it doesnt 'locl' in place, think i posted it above. if i do buy the 70-200 im NOT gonna buy a lens coat but do something else to it to try and make the white/off-grey colour disappear. read that the 100mm prime is actually 5g heavier than the 70-200mm. i want the 'variety' the L zoom lens has to offer.

NOT to mention im only a beginner and i know and have read that buying lenses, particually L lens/primes, are addictive. but im not gonna upgrade my 7D to a better or full frame camera or sell my 18-200 lens. im gonna buy 2 more lens (hopefully an L lens and a prime) and that will be it....but that may change in a few yrs as my skills and knowledge developed, yadda yadda yadda. i wish canon would bring out a 85mm f/3.5 IS USM or invent a 85mm f/2.8 IS USM or 135mm (whatever aperture) IS USM or even an 180mm (... aperture) IS USM lens/es. im considering the 200mm f/2.8 but read that on a crop 1.6 frame camera its equivalent to like 320mm or something and "thats a lot of lens to handle with no IS". i have a lot more reviews and such on the lenses and bags, etc. but its almost 2am and im on the verge of being kicked out (lol, not really but u get my point. ITS LATE! and i should be sleeping)

will post after the new year when my internet gets fixed and hopefully i'll have bought my bag (or on the very verge on buying it) and have made a 120% decision on what lens to buy. keeping posting suggestions and watnot and i'll read them all.

Rix643
Dec 27th, 2009, 03:34 PM
Just a quick answer to your second question: the 70-200. The 100mm is a macro lens, so it's designed to work at close distances. It might not perform as well on longer distances.

I'll get back to your post tomorrow, when I've got more time to react on all those quotes etc.

Rix643
Dec 28th, 2009, 11:40 AM
Well, I'm at my office, so now I have plenty of time to react on bad Angel's previous post. I already stated my opinion about the 100mm macro, I just want to add I never used this lens nor have done some research to judge its long distance performances, but I doubt it will be as good as a non-macro variety.

Don't worry about raising ISO. I tested the 7D against my 30D elaborately on high ISO, and I came to the conclusion that at ISO 3200 the 7D is just as good if not better than my 30d at ISO 800, especially after downsizing my 7D pictures to 30D format. For a moment it made me think about trading my 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS for the f/4 IS. But the advantages of a 2.8 over a 4 (faster shutter speeds, faster and more accurate focussing due to the 7D's usable double cross central focus point and a brighter viewfinder, bokeh) quickly made me dismiss that idea. But my point is the combo of a 7D with a f/4L will still produce great looking images in a low-light situation, albeit a bit more challenging.

I've heard more complaints like this about Canon products. It seems they have some sort of quality assurance issue they just can't seem to resolve. Exemplarily is the problems they had with the 1Dmk3. It took 2 years to solve the auto-focus issues.

The ring-type USM with full-time manual is a nice feature, if you have a use for it. I don't. It is only usable in One-shot AF mode, as in Servo mode (the type you will prefer when shooting sports) the camera will continuouisly try to focus, thus overriding your manual focus adjustments.

The next review is dated November 26, 2007. In the past two years high ISO performances have improved significantly, something you can see with the 7D. On several test sites it has been stated it's high ISO performance equals the 5D and is only excelled by the 5DmkII. The low ligt issues described here shouldn't be much of an issue. If you can make the shot on a 40D/50D with f/2.8 at ISO 800, you make a clearer shot with a 7D at f/4 and ISO 1600 at the same shutter speed. But still, as said before, the f/2.8 has some advantages over the f/4. I don't miss IS on my 2.8 (but that's mainly because I never used it), I usually shoot at speeds high enough to prevent blur from camera shake. L-lenses are very well coated, and lens flare is much less an issue compared to non-L lenses (always use a hood, though). The part of being an effective f/1.4 is rubbish. First of all, three stops up f/2.8 is f/1. (2.8->2.0->1.4->1, a stop is a factor 1.4 or the root of 2 difference in f-number, with shutter speeds and ISo a stop is a factor 2). I try to explain what he really meant (and what is meant by stops advantages with IS). It is all about blur caused by camera shake. As a rule of thumb, your slowest shutter speed is about 1 divided by the focal length, or in other words when you shoot at 200mm zoom, your shutter speed can't be slower than 1/200", otherwise you'll have shake blur. With a lens with a 4-stop IS advantage, you can take pictures at 1/12 at 200mm withut blur. So when you have lighting conditions that require you to shoot at 1/200" at f/1, with a 4-stops IS lens you can shoot at 1/12" at f/4 without having shake blur. But you WILL have subject motion blur and a much larger DOF, so I can't call a f/4 lens with a 4-stops Is an effective f/1 lens. A side note: taking pictures at tennis matches usually requires shutter speeds faster than 1/200", so IS is not necessary in this case.

IS uses a small kind of motor to move a lensgroup to counteract camera movement. This motor uses energy from the camera's batteries. In some cases IS is automatically switched off, in this case it isn't. So as long as the camera is turned on (and IS on the lens is switched on), it will drain your camera's batteries. And I've said it before, always check lenses with your body before buying them.

It's going to be hot.... With or without camera, with these temperatures I wouldn't last 20 minutes..

I skip the reviews of the 100mm macro lens, as I doubt it will suit your purpose.

I kinda fail to understand how you know the lighting conditions at RLA will cause flare. It is something you can only find out after taking pictures (unfortunately). Dealing with flare and how to avoid it is one of the things you will have to learn as a photographer. Rule here is: try to avoid light beams to hit your front elemnt directly. It is something you cannot control with aperture, shutter speeds or ISO settings. A lens with good coatings can help though, and Canon L-lenses are some of the best lenses around as far as controlling flare is concerned. I looked at some of my earlier pictures and I didn't notice any significant flare, even when I accidently shot into the lights or into those horrible billboards alongside centre court in Linz. I had some metering issues, but that's something completely different.
But in any case, if it is some sort of consolation for you, in the worst circumstances even the best lenses will have flare issues (if you don't believe me. check out any high budget Hollywood production, you will always see some flaring at a given point). Your lens might have a small advantage at the wide end, but at 200mm is a full stop slower.

There are some minor differences in focal lengths between lenses, even those of same mark and type... It's just a few mms though, and mainly noticeable at the short end. Of ourse your consumer lens has a much wider short end than a 70-200mm lens, here the difference is noticeable ;).
There is nothing wrong with lenses overlapping each other at certain focal lengths. I also have lenses overlapping each other. My lens setup: 16-35, 18-55, 18-200, 28-70, 70-200 (+extender: 140-400), 100-300, 170-500. As you can see, I've 4 lenses covering the focal lengths between 28-35mm, but each lens serves a different purpose. The 16-35, 28-70 and 70-200 are fast (and heavy!) 2.8L lenses which I mainly use for action photography, the 18-55 is the very light IS kit lens which still works perfect in low-light situations, photographing non-moving objects when flash can't be used (I call it my museum lens), the 18-200 mm is my general low-profile walk-around lens. The latter two I use for human landscape photography.

Question nr. 2 already covered, and I believe you made up your mind as well. Some additions though. I wouldn't be bothered by the color. It has a function, especially in bright, sunny and warm (AO!) conditions as it will help preventing the lens heating up too much. If, however, the choices were not just limited between those two lenses but it is merely a matter of money, I'd probably go for a 70-200 f/4L non-IS, a 50mm f/1.4 and save some money..

Yes, L-lenses are addictive, and I'll bet on it that when you finally have your 70-200mm and see your first results, you'll start saving for a 24-70mm 2.8L (you won't miss IS on that one). It's hard to upgrade your 7D ATM. The only options are the 5DmkII (FF thus shallower effective DOF, more pixels with lower density giving more detail, the best high ISO performance you can get; con: slower burst rate) or the professional 1D series. Very expensive, although a second hand 1DmkIII is about as expensive as a 5DmkII. And all the Canon shooters wish for a 10-500mm f/1 IS USM lens with fabulous contrast and sharpness, weighing in at less than 250 gram for no more than $75,=...... But that's never going to happen, I'm afraid :p.

All the best!!

bad_angel_109
Dec 28th, 2009, 01:07 PM
going to make this short and blunt.

im leaning towards the 70-200 over the 100 macro only coz its basically got more variety and zoom than the prime. im afraid i'll be refused entry because of the 70-200's colour and professional-looking build than anything else if i go and watch a match at RLA/hisense. the RLA flare/glare i was there for a few matches and watching some of those matches when the roof was closed and sitting in the first or second row (in a couple of those matches) right behind where the players sit/umpire is, i was constantly pointing shooting in the direction of the spotlight/floodlights. all of my pics (unfortunately i cant post any now, they're on a different computer that i dunno where it is) turned out 'hazy' with a lot of noise and it looked like there was a mist in the stadium or something. of course i was using my olyumpus digital camera.

and im considering just paying a bit more money to buy the 24-70mm f/2.8 prime rather than the 70-200. i was actually going to buy the 24-105mm prime before i bought my camera but then i watched a review on youtube and the guy said that every single photo that he took there was a blue-ish outline in his photos and he had to photoshop them out in post-processing. so that put me off buying that lens. money's a main issue for me: i need to buy another battery, bag, ground passes (thinking of buying semi final tix again), maybe a monopod/tripod for after the tennis to shoot portraits, etc and other goods that i need. atm im currently looking for a job as i got fired from mine about a month ago :(

almost 1am, goota go. gonna use my camera every so often now before the AO to get used to the functions, settings and the camera itself and the lens. gonna shoot in lowlight at sunset which is between 8.20-9pm. will post what i decide to do in the new year. tho i think my consumer lens has the ability to let in a bit more light than the 70-200?? i dunno. im just going by the apertures. ok another important question.

WHY do people insist and are determined to buy expensive, professional (but quality glass) when they buy an L lens/es or a prime when AFTER they take photos and during post-processing they then PHOTOSHOP they photos to make it look better than the lens?? i mean if its qaulity lens (e.g any of the 70-200 lenses) then they photoshop it to make it look better, whats the point of owning such an expensive and professional and quality lens when all ur just gonna do is use photoshop?

im back-pendling and being fickle and nit-picking, etc. again BUT(!) it now makes me think that i shouldnt even buy a lens and use invest all my time and effort in improving my skills with the lens i've got and then photoshopping a decent-looking pic to make it look better. that way i would save my money, improve and develop my skills thus giving me more time to research (and wait for) better lens and possibly even buying the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM - altho its quite heavy. just a bit of food for thought for me. im still comptemplating. i wanna take the time to find the right lens for me so i dont end up regretting my decision to buy a certain lens and wasting a lot of money as im not earning any money for my photos - which i think i should considering im attending the AO everyday and that itself very expensive, arduous and tiresome and very hot.

i suspect that within 2 weeks i'll have my packbag, tickets, other necessary goods and hopefully lens sorted out :)
i appreciate everyone's help tnx. thinking of buying the refurbished amazon 70-200 f/4 IS USM lens for $USD999.95. sounds ok i guess.

bad_angel_109
Dec 29th, 2009, 08:12 AM
i forgot to ask u rix, i dunno whether u've tried filming with ur 7D yet, but the mic's stronger (picks up more sounds) than i first thought. here's the question: with ur 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM lens attached to ur 7D, and ur filming and using manual AF, does the mic picks up the 'shifting' noise from ur lens?

ok i've got a problem: i dont have enough money to pay for the 70-200mm f/4 IS USM. asked my mum and she wont pay the rest (i have about $1000) for me. so is there some other good lens under $1000 i can buy that will enable me to take decent-looking tennis photos? preferrably from my local camera store (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproductcategory/canon-slr-lenses--2074819.html) as i dont have a credit card so i cant buy things online :(

im thinking of not buying a lens until nxt year (after the AO) when i have a bit more money and (hopefully) new better lenses are released. going to use my camera in about 30 mins when the sun sets.
forgot to post this. couple of other reviews for the 70-200 f/4 IS USM (most reviews i post are from amazon)

5/5 stars (for the lens), Sports Review for this lens, October 29, 2009
By T. M. Bappe "Bapster" (Ontario, Oregon)

If you want this lens for sports then you should read this. I've taken about 25,000-30,000 photos now of sports with this lens. It has functioned great for me the whole time. You can here the stabilizers kick on the instant the shutter button is pressed. This lens has great Bokeh at 4.0 when the subject is within 4 to 15 feet away and starts to taper off as the subject get further out but never the less great Bokeh and sharpness. I always have it at f4 during games. When taking sports photos in good full sun this lens does great. I have a Canon Rebel and usually keep my ISO at 100 in that kind of light with Aperture Priority Set and shutter speeds usually hit 500-2000/sec normal. Plenty fast to stop all action except maybe a hit baseball. When the sun starts going down it becomes a different matter all together. I find myself quicky turning up my ISO to compensate. Once the sun does go down completely and stadium lights come on, I have my ISO set to the highest at 1600. I also have to then switch to Time Priority and set to 250 to 320 to stop movement in sports such as football. Football game photos under stadium lights then become very dark and must be corrected latter with my editing program (which you will need). The photos with that kind of ISO then turn out high noise and hence will also need corrected. Over all I love this lens for day time sports. However, there are many times that I wished I had just saved and got the 2.8 70-200mm lens. If you own a camera that will do a higher ISO than 1600 then you will gain a little in that area over me. In extreme dark conditions sports you will have to max out your ISO and sacrifice light by going to a time priority mode, (if you don't want to use flash...I never use the flash-worthless paste ten feet anyway).

Inside a gymnasium: again this lens needs a flash which I refuse to do blinding athletes. To get photos without a flash, you will have to go to at least 800 to 1600 ISO. Any lower and you will have so much blur your photos will be useless. And again Time Priority of about 250 -320 to let in enough light and still lock in all but the fastest movement.

I give this lens great ratings because it deserves it. However, if I could choose now, I would spend the extra money and get the f2.8 glass instead. I would at least be able to adjust down the ISO by one notch or go a little higher on my shutter speed. I little more leeway with the f2.8. Weight wise, I know this glass is lighter than the 2.8 and something worth considering when you're going to be holding a lens up for 2 or more hours at a game.
_________

3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4/5 stars Great lens, worth the premium maybe.., June 5, 2009
By JonLuc

I bought this lens as a replacement for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS because I wanted something better built that did not extend and focused faster. That was what I told myself, I really wanted to buy it because it was an L lens! It did all the things mentioned but after comparing the pictures I took side by side, I decided it was not worth the premium. It did not help that my copy had some IS issues. The pictures were great, focus in low light was a tad better than the 70-300 and it locked on smaller objects faster than the 70-300 in good light. If the non, extending barrel, non-rotating front, marginally faster focus and better build are worth the extra money to you this is an awesome lens. For me it is my least used lens so the premium was not worth it especially since the image quality was marginally better. I give it 4 stars for image quality and ding it one star for price/value.

Rix643
Dec 29th, 2009, 10:45 AM
The way you describe your pictures sounds like an extreme amount of flaring to me. You said you used an Olympus camera. I don't know much about that brand, but if it was a compact camera, it probably didn't have a lens hood or a decent lens coating. These two are quite important when you try to reduce flare. I've found a nice site which contains an article about flare and how to reduce it: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm
It also has some other articles/tutorials about basic photography techniques. Maybe you should give it a look.

You're calling zooms (24-70, 24-105) primes again......;) Again, primes are single focus-length lenses.
Sorry to hear you lost your job, makes buying lenses more difficult.

You consumer lens does let in a little more light (3.5 against 4), but only at the wide end (at 18mm). At the tele-end (200mm) it's a f/5.6 lens. That's why the aperture denomination is f/3.5-5.6. The 70-200mm f/4L lens is f/4 throughout the entire zoom range.

Photoshop makes good pictures taken with good lenses look better, and great pictures taken with professional grade glass look excellent. L-glass, or rather professional glass, will give you so much more detail, sharpness or color you will not be able to recreate from a picture taken with a consumer grade lens. Even back in the old days of dark rooms, photographers used special techniques to improve the quality of their negatives.
I also use PS a lot, but mainly because I shoot in RAW, and I prefer Adobe's RAW Codec over Canon's own. My post-processing is usually limited to minor adjustments in white balance, contrast and some sharpening. In general post-processing pictures taken with L-lenses are considerably less extensive than with non-L lenses.

About not buying a lens and first trying to improve your techniques, it's something I suggested earlier:
If I can give you an advice: DON'T buy any other lens right now. First get to know your body and all of the possibilities it has to offer. Start with using the basic modes, learn what exposure settings you have to use, then try the creative modes, ie. the Av, Tv and M-settings.
Now I own a 7D myself, I realize there are so many things I have to learn about this camera that it will take me at least a couple of months of experimenting before I'm able to get the best results out of it. Especially learning to use the new AF system is quite challenging.

I'm a bit careful when it comes to so-called refurbished equipment. Usually it is something which has been broken and repaired. In most cases it doesn't function as well as it did in the first place.

I haven't tried filming seriously yet. Just a couple of seconds to try it out but nothing substantial. All I can say about it is what I read on the Internet: the built-in mic takes up a lot of noise from the camera itself and it is better to use an external mic.

Alternative lenses: none. Too slow, not enough range, no USM.

The Canon Rebel is the 300D. The 7D outperfoms this camera on any level. At ISO 12800 it makes better pictures the the 300D at 1600 (IMNSHO).

bad_angel_109
Jan 12th, 2010, 10:38 AM
i havent bought a new lens...still thinking about tho. i will buy one, when i save up a bit more and get to know my camera a bit more. lenses im interested in: 70-200mm IS (both the f/2.8 and f/4), 100mm IS macro USM, 24-70mm 2.8, 100-400mm (cant remember wat the aperture is and i know its a push-pull lens but i read that its the 'most used sports lens' coz of the local focal distance) and a few other primes like the 85, 100, 135 and 180, etc. also does the 70-200mm f/4 IS USM perform just as well if not better than the 70-200mm IS USM in full daylight where there is plenty of sunlight? coz someone on youtube (i9 cant find the comment anymore :() said to buy the f/4 and bump up the ISO and the shutter speed and the f/4 is just as good as the 2.8. but apprently the 2.8 has better bokeh? i dont know.

i've bought the bag im gonna use. its box-y looking and bulky. i bought a $100 hydration pack as a 1.5L water bottle can barely, very barely, manage to fit into my bag coz of the way its designed. i'd normally bring at least 2 large bottles of water but i cant coz of my bag. i havent used my camera since last monday when i bought my bag and a lot of other stuff including a spare battery (battery was $100 and the bag was $160. i spent A LOT that day).


now i need to know what the best and most ideal camera settings are. i know most photographers are using a 1D mark II camera but i had a look at the EXIF(?) data of a very recent sharapova pic (it was taken earlier today). the photographer used these settings; AV (aperture value 5.6), TV (shutter speed 1/640), ISO speed 320 and the parameter settings were colour space sRGB. i dont really understand what all that means, i can sorta understand some lol.

but im thinking i should use TV and perhaps auto for the aperture?? coz i want to freeze the motion/action. i think i might follow that ^ photographer's settings and lower the ISO and change the shutter speed like he did. as i dont have USM im gonna use mode 2 to try and make my lens quieter when taking photos - i hope it works as i dont want to get kicked out of RLA/hisense coz my lens is too loud :lol:

so what settings should i use?
AV, TV, P, CA(?) or full auto focus (the green rectangle?)
ISO should be? if i dont set it to something i'll put it on auto which i think will change the colour of my photos or something along the lines of that.
im going to read the manual again to see how to change the shutter speed and how exactly to set and use AL-servo(?) to tack the players.
is AF or MF better? imo my AF is slow and at times, it doeasn't 'lock' onto the (inanimate) subject which i think is mostly due to me. i suspect i'll use MF mostly due to the fact that my lens' AF is slow and my photos will be JPEGs as i still havent manage to change my camera's settings to RAW. i've read the manual but it doesnt work.

i might post a photo or two come thiursday night after the qualies just so u can give me any helpful suggestions/tips on how to improve my photography skills and/or amend my camera's settings so i get better quality, sharp and clear images.

Nikkiri
Jan 12th, 2010, 11:31 AM
I went to the tennis on Monday and the guy made a big fuss over my 75-300mm lens :o so I'm looking to buy a new one in the next couple of days. I have no idea what I'm looking for, just I need any suggestions for a cheapish lens for my Canon 1000D.

bad_angel_109
Jan 12th, 2010, 11:44 AM
I went to the tennis on Monday and the guy made a big fuss over my 75-300mm lens :o so I'm looking to buy a new one in the next couple of days. I have no idea what I'm looking for, just I need any suggestions for a cheapish lens for my Canon 1000D.:o really? sounds like they're improving their knowledge about cameras and lenses and being a bunch of tightarses and cracking down. in previous years i thought it was ok if someone had a black lens (even if it exceeded 300mm) that u might be able to sneak in. did he say anything about ur camera? gosh i hope they let me in with my camera. here's hoping they are still a bit ignorant and dont know its a professional camera :p

Nikkiri
Jan 12th, 2010, 11:54 AM
:o really? sounds like they're improving their knowledge about cameras and lenses and being a bunch of tightarses and cracking down. in previous years i thought it was ok if someone had a black lens (even if it exceeded 300mm) that u might be able to sneak in. did he say anything about ur camera? gosh i hope they let me in with my camera. here's hoping they are still a bit ignorant and dont know its a professional camera :p

I got in fine with it. But this guy just saw me using it and told me I wasn't allowed to use the lens yadda yadda. So yeah I'd be careful I guess.

Rix643
Jan 12th, 2010, 01:27 PM
About the 100-400mm: It has an aperture of f/4.5 at the wide end up to f/5.6 at the zoom end. I doubt if it makes a really good sports lens. It is a rather slow, as well in aperture as well in focussing. It has a ring-type USM but many consider this lens to have the worst AF-speed of the L-grade telezooms. Zoom is very nice though, and the push-pull zoom makes for a quick and easy framing. It's not my cup of tea though.
About the 70-200mms: The f/4 IS is considered to be the best in image quality out of the 4 (2.8, 4.0, IS, non-IS), the 2.8 IS is the worst. I kinda have to agree with the guy on youtube. With the 7D you can use ISO up to 3200 and still get good results (low noise). Besides, 2.8 is only good in low-light situations, outside you will prefer to use smaller apertures (higher f-number); I come to that in just a moment. A 2.8 does produce a better bokeh (more background blur), but the difference at 200mm between 2.8 and 4.0 is minimal. Also, with a 2.8 lens you can use the extra sensitivity of the central focus point on a 7D, which is really a big plus. See earlier posts about more 2.8/4.0 differences.

Congrats on your bag, hope you will find good use for it.

The ideal settings: that's personal and differ from situation to situation. In general you can say you want an ISO value as low as possible (less noise, smaller files) and an as high as possible shutter speed (at least 1/1000" if you want to freeze the ball). The aperture you try to keep as close as possible to the lens's sweet spot, generally around f/8 but differs from lens to lens. The sweet spot is where the lens is at its sharpest and offers the best colors and contrast (making AF working faster as well). Personally during daytime and outdoors, I prefer shooting in Tv-mode, shutter speed above 800, ISO below 400, Av at 5.6 at average lit spots while preventing to get smaller then f/11 at the brightest. I also turn on safety shift to prevent underexposure at darker spots. AF in AI Servo mode giving focussing full priority over shooting speed, setting tracking sensitivity to low, use the central focus point with Af point expansion mode on, setting continous AF track priority on. I shoot only RAW, so picture styles are less important (I use standard because of review) and I set white balance to auto. No noise reduction of any kind (all done in post). Occasionally I set exposure compensation 1/3 to 2/3 stop down (a bit underexposed; usefull when there is much light colors like white tennis clothes. But all this is personal, you might like different settings. Leave colorspace on sRGB. The other option (AdobeRGB) is for professional prints, using the Adobe color management.
If you're referring to the mode-2 switch on your lens, it has nothing to do with AF. It's for the IS, setting mode 2 disables stabilization for horizontal movements. This is used on tripods while panning.

Changing RAW/JPEG setting: Press menu. Select the first menu option (top right red camera with 1 dot). Select 'Quality'. Press set to enter settings screen. With top dial select RAW-settings (not -, this will turn RAW off), with the back dial select JPEG settings (again - turns it off; when both turned off the camera automatically selects large JPG fine). Press SET to confirm settings, any other button (like MENU or shutter) will cancel changes. I tend to forget the last press on the SET-button myself.

Canon USA has a very comprehensive site filled with manuals and tutorials, the Learning Station (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=MultiMiscPageAct&key=Learning_Station&fcategoryid=2533), with everything about choosing lenses, picture styles etc. etc.
Part of this is the Canon Digital Learning Center (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=HomePageAct)where you can find all kinds of tips, workshops and all kind of information about the current camera models. Here is the 7D's main page (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetProductAct&productID=329). You can find a link to a page containg all kind of instruction video's for the 7D (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3167&productID=329&articleTypeID=48), including one about setting image quality (http://cdn.sellpoint.net/canon/EOS_7D-07_Image_Quality_Options.html).

EDIT: I expected the last video to show how to change the RAW/JPEG settings, unfortunately it doesn't. I hope my instructions help.

Langers
Jan 12th, 2010, 01:29 PM
I got in fine with it. But this guy just saw me using it and told me I wasn't allowed to use the lens yadda yadda. So yeah I'd be careful I guess.
That's so stupid, maybe I'll just stick with mine again this year. I'm looking to buy a new one, a Cannon, but really it's mainly for the tennis and sounds like I won't even be able to use it anyway. :rolleyes:

How is the Canon 1000D going? Definitely looking to buy a Cannon.

matty
Jan 13th, 2010, 02:14 AM
a nikon

bad_angel_109
Jan 13th, 2010, 10:59 AM
I got in fine with it. But this guy just saw me using it and told me I wasn't allowed to use the lens yadda yadda. So yeah I'd be careful I guess.i'll definitely take heed to take. but i think i might keep my camera in my bag til i get past the gates especially if there are security guards lurking around.

About the 70-200mms: The f/4 IS is considered to be the best in image quality out of the 4 (2.8, 4.0, IS, non-IS), the 2.8 IS is the worst. I kinda have to agree with the guy on youtube. With the 7D you can use ISO up to 3200 and still get good results (low noise). Besides, 2.8 is only good in low-light situations, outside you will prefer to use smaller apertures (higher f-number); I come to that in just a moment. A 2.8 does produce a better bokeh (more background blur), but the difference at 200mm between 2.8 and 4.0 is minimal. Also, with a 2.8 lens you can use the extra sensitivity of the central focus point on a 7D, which is really a big plus. See earlier posts about more 2.8/4.0 differences.

...

The ideal settings: that's personal and differ from situation to situation. In general you can say you want an ISO value as low as possible (less noise, smaller files) and an as high as possible shutter speed (at least 1/1000" if you want to freeze the ball). The aperture you try to keep as close as possible to the lens's sweet spot, generally around f/8 but differs from lens to lens. The sweet spot is where the lens is at its sharpest and offers the best colors and contrast (making AF working faster as well). Personally during daytime and outdoors, I prefer shooting in Tv-mode, shutter speed above 800, ISO below 400, Av at 5.6 at average lit spots while preventing to get smaller then f/11 at the brightest. I also turn on safety shift to prevent underexposure at darker spots. AF in AI Servo mode giving focussing full priority over shooting speed, setting tracking sensitivity to low, use the central focus point with Af point expansion mode on, setting continous AF track priority on. I shoot only RAW, so picture styles are less important (I use standard because of review) and I set white balance to auto. No noise reduction of any kind (all done in post). Occasionally I set exposure compensation 1/3 to 2/3 stop down (a bit underexposed; usefull when there is much light colors like white tennis clothes. But all this is personal, you might like different settings. Leave colorspace on sRGB. The other option (AdobeRGB) is for professional prints, using the Adobe color management.
If you're referring to the mode-2 switch on your lens, it has nothing to do with AF. It's for the IS, setting mode 2 disables stabilization for horizontal movements. This is used on tripods while panning.tnx for all the info. i think i might buy the f/4 IS USM as its lighter and cheaper than the 2.8 (altho it doesnt have the flower petal lens hood which i really want lol). and i'll get either the 24-70mm 2.8 or the 100mm IS USM prime.

i think i'll experiement with the settings tomorrow - i'll change the settings when watching lesser-known players practice and i'll just use TV (and bump up the ISO and shutter speed and a few other things) mode when im watching the more well-known players. i'll try and record some HD (maybe full HD) videos of some players practicing. im going tomorrow, friday and saturday so hopefully i'll gain some experience with the camera settings then and ready myself for the main draw on monday.

Postcard
Jan 13th, 2010, 11:57 PM
On Monday and Tuesday at the Medibank International in Sydney they were examining cameras closely. Taking them out, reading the fine print and looking for cameras to which lenses can be added.
I think that it's the 1st time that my camera has been checked (at soccer, basketball, cricket, tennis).

bad_angel_109
Jan 14th, 2010, 11:31 AM
On Monday and Tuesday at the Medibank International in Sydney they were examining cameras closely. Taking them out, reading the fine print and looking for cameras to which lenses can be added.
I think that it's the 1st time that my camera has been checked (at soccer, basketball, cricket, tennis).really? :o bunch of tightarses.

here's 3 pics i took today. resized (last 2 are cropped and all unsharp masked, which i think i made the photos look worse lol)

robson
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Qualies%20Thursday%2014th%20Jan%202010/IMG_1098_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Qualies%20Thursday%2014th%20Jan%202010/IMG_1100_2.jpg

wichmayer
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Qualies%20Thursday%2014th%20Jan%202010/IMG_1291_2.jpg

Rix643
Jan 14th, 2010, 12:52 PM
First, I couldn't find which editing software you used. You mentioned unsharp mask, which is something you apply in post-processing. In DPP and PS there are a couple of parameters you can set which effect the final result.

On the first two pictures I see 'normal program' as exposure program, I guess this is either the grteen or the CA mode. If so, it puts the ISO value much too high at 1000 and compensate for it for narrowing the aperture too much. Shutter speed is OK, though. Can't say much about the first two because of the automatic mode which has been used. If you shoot in CA, use a low DoF setting (makes the aperture wider).
About pic 3: not much. Some compostion remarks. It looks skewed (or sloping, whatever you call it) and when you do full body shots, don't amputate players.
I feel it'also a bit overexposed, especially Yanina's shirt. Check your histogram, if it is cut off on the right, you're overexposing. Use a different metering method or exposure compensation. Or, when in CA, lower picture brightness.
White balance looks okay. EXIF just says manual but I'm not sure which setting on the 7D returns this value, custom, temperature and/or the predefined settings.

One other thing I noticed: your camera's firmware is still version 1.0.8. Canon has aready released verion 1.1.0, so maybe you want to upgrade.

Langers
Jan 14th, 2010, 02:26 PM
really? :o bunch of tightarses.

here's 3 pics i took today. resized (last 2 are cropped and all unsharp masked, which i think i made the photos look worse lol)

wichmayer
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Qualies%20Thursday%2014th%20Jan%202010/IMG_1291_2.jpg
The ball boys are wearing purple this year, seriously? :help: Such a simple decision, yet they stuff it up.

bad_angel_109
Jan 17th, 2010, 05:20 AM
^ lol its hot pink. its a bad decision - blue and pink are contrasting colours. what idiots.


i REALLY want to update my firmware but im scared that it'll be defective or it somehows goes wrong when im installing it and it'll screw up my camera :( canon and co wont help u and provide any assistance if u do decide to update the firmware. the instructions have confused me. how the hell do u install the firmware on ur CF/card reader?? im confused.

i want to update it as im going to the sharapova-kirilenko (and whoever else is playing) match on RLA tomorrow. only going to support kirilenko tho :p wish it wasnt in RLA, damn sharapova, she's such a crowd-p=uller lol. AO organisers want to exploit everyone coz of the biug names in womens tennis that they can put in hisense or RLA.

i dont think i'll update my firmware now just in case something does go wrong. pic of molik i took yesterday
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Qualies%20Saturday%2016th%20Jan%202010/IMG_1637_23.jpg

Rix643
Jan 17th, 2010, 08:09 AM
I installed the firmware update and it works fine. Updating the firmware is quite easy and nothing to be afraid of as long as you're a bit cautious. Just make sure you have a fully charged battery, don't shut off power during the process (that's why I prefer using batteries instead of an AC adapter; you just might have a power outage) and don't press any buttons or open the card slot.
I give you a short run-down of the procedure using a CF-card. There is an alternative way by connecting your camera directly to your computer and using the EOS-utility, but I prefer to keep my camera disconnected. The update procedure takes a couple of minutes and during that time I like to keep the camera out of my way just to make sure I don't accidently press a button.


- Donwload the self-extracting file from here (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/firm-e/eos7d/firmware.html) (after you press "I agree");
- Run the downloaded file, you'll get a file called 7d000110.fir;
- Format a card with your camera. Formatting is in the first (yellow) settings-menu;
- Take the card out of the camera and put it in a card reader connected to your computer;
- Move or copy the extracted file (7d000110.fir) to the root of your memory card (i.e. "H:\");
- Remove the card from the reader and put it back in your camera;
- Select the Firmware option. It's the last in the third yellow settings-menu;
- Press Set. If you get a message that you need a card with firmware, you didn't copy it to the right place.
- If everything is right, you get the message "Current version is 1.0.8. Update." Select OK and press SET;
- You get a screen telling you the update program is loading, followed by a screen asking you to select the new firmware. There is just one so just press SET;
- Next screen ask you to confirm the update: "Udate firmware? 1.0.8 -> 1.1.0". This is the last chance to cancel. Select OK and press SET;
- The next screen shows the updating in progress. It's best to leave your camera alone. The update takes a moment, and you don't want to mess it up by pressing any button by accident. After the update, you get a screen telling the update is complete. Press SET to confirm and the camera will reset itself;
- Switch camera off, remove battery for a couple of seconds then put it back in again and turn camera on.
You're done. You might like to format your card again to remove the firmware program.

All in all it is quite simple and takes just a couple of minutes. I performed this action a couple of times already (in the past I also updated the firmware for my 30D, and I just did it again for my 7D to remember how the procedure actually works) and never had any trouble. But I can imagine you don't want to take any risks at the moment. In case something might go wrong Canon will fix your camera for you, but it means you'll be missing it for a couple of weeks.

bad_angel_109
Jan 18th, 2010, 11:29 AM
i use a simple free internet-based program to sharpen the pics and adjust the colours, etc.
i was fiddling too much with the settings to get the 'right' picture. didnt really work out as planned...here are some of the pics i took today at RLA :)
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Monday%2018th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0559_223.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Monday%2018th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0373_222.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Monday%2018th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0462_222.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Monday%2018th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0379_222.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Monday%2018th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0534_222.jpg

bad_angel_109
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:59 AM
there seriously wasnt a day i didnt get asked at least 5 times about my lens. only 2 guards mentioned and asked me about my camera. thank god they're still ignorant enough to not realize the 7D's capabilities and that its a professional camera. but all they pretty much cared about was the focal length.

http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2020th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0685_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2020th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0819_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2020th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0819_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2020th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0477_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2020th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0528_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Friday%2022nd%20Jan%202010/IMG_0370_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Friday%2022nd%20Jan%202010/IMG_0370_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Saturday%2023rd%20Jan%202010/IMG_0277_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Saturday%2023rd%20Jan%202010/IMG_0533_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Saturday%2023rd%20Jan%202010/IMG_0402_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Saturday%2023rd%20Jan%202010/IMG_0459_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Saturday%2023rd%20Jan%202010/IMG_0496_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Saturday%2023rd%20Jan%202010/IMG_0385_2.jpg

trust me i've got better looking photos and i sharpened only the kirilenko pics a little too much so thats why they look a bit grainy and odd. im soo tired

Rix643
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:25 AM
Bumping this thread coz I've found myself in the same dilemma as TS, albeit of a different magnitude.

First, I like to ask bad angel to post more pictures, preferably unaltered (no sharpening or cropping, original size if possible; links will do). I like to do some closer examination of the capabilties of the 7D.

Now about the new lens I want, I have the option between the 400mm 2.8L IS or the 500mm 4.0L IS.
400mm
Pros: fast, 2.8, takes extenders very well(a 2x makes it a 800mm 5.6), extremely sharp (with the 200 and 300mm 2.8 considered to be the sharpest), extremely fast AF.
Cons: Heavy (5.38kg, Canon's heaviest), less reach. I used the 2x TC with my 70-200 at times, and still wished I had more reach. All on a 30D body, so maybe it's possible to crop the 7D's pictures to get the same result(Bad Angel, that's why I like some of your unaltered pics)

500mm
Pros: Less heavy (3.8kg), more reach
Cons: No 2.8, won't take a 2x TC without losing AF on a 7D, minimal loss in AF performance compared to 400mm. Might also be less sharp (but who's complaining when comparing with ANY 70-200..)

TBH, I already kinda made up my mind. And to be absolutely sure I'll rent and test both of them first.
But anyway, I'll appreciate any serious input.

bad_angel_109
Feb 8th, 2010, 12:56 PM
i'd probably buy the 400mm. but i barely even know what im talking about when it comes to cameras and lenses, lol

i've got one 1 pic, untagged, uncropped, not resized or anything for you (it takes ages to upload). in the first 2 or 3 days i had trouble trying to figure out the settings. u'll probably laugh when you see my EXIF data. about 80% of my photos have an ISO of 2000 and the shutter speed is like 1/2000. i thought, for a silly reason, that the higher the number the faster and better it would be :lol: clearly not. i did take a few good photos with 1/850 and around there.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5430/img0152vk.th.jpg (http://img222.imageshack.us/i/img0152vk.jpg/)

http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Thursday%2021st%20Jan%202010/IMG_0290_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Thursday%2021st%20Jan%202010/IMG_0276_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Thursday%2021st%20Jan%202010/IMG_0161_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Thursday%2021st%20Jan%202010/IMG_0085_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Thursday%2021st%20Jan%202010/IMG_0004_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Tuesday%2026th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0334_22.jpg

Rix643
Feb 8th, 2010, 02:25 PM
Thanks alot! I must admit I'm a bit amazed by the performance of the 7D. The noise level at ISO 2000 is very acceptable, and probably easy reducible in post. I was planning to get a 5DmkII for the high ISO performance, but I think I better practise with the 7D a little more. Simply astonishing (well, compared to my ol'trusty 30D).
But you're right, the settings of 1/2000", F9 and ISO 2000 are bit, well, odd. Considering the lens you used I'd probably go for 1/800", F/5.6, ISO400. I also noticed you used an exposure value of +0.33 (overexposing a little). To my taste a bit too light. When photographing bright subjects (players with white shirts) I prefer to underexpose a little (-0.33 to -0.67). Especially on the 7D, where the dynamic range is one of it weakest points, it helps keeping detail in brighter areas.

I did a bit more research on both lenses, and it will be the 400mm. That is, if I can handhold it (been practising with a four-pack of 1.5 liter coke-bottles ;). It's about the same weight). Seems handleable, but I'm buying a strong monopod with it anyway.
On many reviews it says it outperforms the 500mm on every level, even with a 1.4 converter attached (making it a 560 F/4). Not that the 500mm is a bad lens, the 400mm is simply such a good lens. It IS the ultimate sports lens (seems I mentioned it in my first post in this thread, completely forgot about it).
Hopefully I can pick it up by the end of this week.
I'll post a picture of my 2.8 glass collection... :D

Rix643
Feb 10th, 2010, 01:46 PM
It has arrived:

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/Rix643/WTAWorld/IMG_0069a.jpg

(Maybe I'd better have bought a new kitchentable... ;))


The main part of my equipment:

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/Rix643/WTAWorld/DSCF0222a.jpg

From left to right:
30D with BG-E2N grip and 70-200mm F/2.8 L USM (non-IS);
16-35mm F/2.8 L USM II with the EF 2.0x II in front;
580EX II Speedlite with STO-FEN OmniBounce;
28-70mm F/2.8 L with EF 1.4x II in front;
7D with BG-E7 grip and 400mm F/2.8 L USM iS.

Langers
Feb 10th, 2010, 01:53 PM
there seriously wasnt a day i didnt get asked at least 5 times about my lens. only 2 guards mentioned and asked me about my camera. thank god they're still ignorant enough to not realize the 7D's capabilities and that its a professional camera. but all they pretty much cared about was the focal length.
Guess what? On Monday I got my camera confiscated as I entered the venue. :fiery: I was sooooo angry, kinda ruined my day.

Did they ask about your camera while you were taking photos or as you entered? My camera is good I guess, but I never thought it was good enough to be taken off me. :mad:

That's some mighty impressive looking equipment Rix643. :hatoff: I wouldn't have a clue what it all means though!

Rix643
Feb 10th, 2010, 02:08 PM
I wouldn't have a clue what it all means though!

Neither do I, but I like lugging it around as it gives me the best places at matches... ;)

BTW, what camera (and lens) did you try to bring on the venue?

bad_angel_109
Apr 6th, 2010, 10:43 AM
...I got my camera confiscated as I entered the venue. :fiery: I was sooooo angry, kinda ruined my day.

Did they ask about your camera while you were taking photos or as you entered? My camera is good I guess, but I never thought it was good enough to be taken off me. :mad:Are you serious?! i didnt get my camera confiscated but i was wary each time i had my lens checked at the entrance and when i was just walking around watching practices and matches. kind of funnily enough i was asked least about my lens and camera a total of 4 times whenever i was in rod laver arena which i bought tix there for like 4 days. since i've got a 7D and since its a 1 digit number along with the 'D' i thought it'd get confiscated as u see all the professional photographers with these (Canon) 1D's and 5D's, etc. cameras.

with what's happened at this year's AO (flares going off and assaulting little girls, etc) the security will most definitely be bumped up next year. i think they might even lower the telephoto lens from 200mm down to something like 180mm that patrons will be able to bring in.


It has arrived:

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/Rix643/WTAWorld/IMG_0069a.jpgwow that's a really big (and impressive) lens. that thing must weigh 10kg the very least! :o

hey rix, have u heard about the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II? (http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/canon-70-200-f2-8-l-is-ii-usm-review/) its the new Mark II version and apparently it's just amazing and super sharp with beautiful contrast and saturation. its about 20g heavier than the original. im thinking of buying it (once the initial prices drop, i hope!) in preparation for next year's AO :lol: its retailing for approx $3500 in australia.

here are some more photos from the AO. the 7D is a magnificent camera, it really is...of course you have to have sufficient camera knowledge to back up its capabilities and take great photos. my knowledge (and skill) is obviously limited but IMO i took a few great pics over the course of 2 and a half weeks including the qualifying matches.

Li Na, Federer, Azarenka, KUznetsova, Hantuchova, Vesnina, Kirilenko, Davydenko and Serena (in no particular order)
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Friday%2022nd%20Jan%202010/IMG_0298.jpg http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Friday%2022nd%20Jan%202010/IMG_0202.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0837.jpg http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0678.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0939.jpg http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0620.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0468.jpg http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0457.jpg

more pics to come[/COLOR]

bad_angel_109
Apr 6th, 2010, 10:43 AM
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0250.jpg http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0337.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0339.jpg http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0239.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0807.jpg http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0940_2.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0940_2.jpg http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Thursday%2021st%20Jan%202010/IMG_0412.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Thursday%2021st%20Jan%202010/IMG_0836.jpg http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Thursday%2021st%20Jan%202010/IMG_0476.jpg http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Tuesday%2026th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0103.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Tuesday%2026th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0387.jpg
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq40/dancequeen_109/AO%202010/Wednesday%2027th%20Jan%202010/IMG_0556_22.jpg



EDIT: ignore the doubles posts of pics

Mary Cherry.
Apr 6th, 2010, 12:08 PM
I had no idea there'd be limits on lens sizes (within reason) :scared: I just bought a new DSLR (I'm a complete beginner, mind you) and was hoping to get some snaps at all the tournaments I'm visiting this year.

Luckily there was a twin lens kit on offer - came with an 18-55mm and a 75-300mm lens so if there are any problems with the latter I'll be able to use the first and just pass myself off as a tourist :lol:


Great pics, by the way.

Rix643
May 19th, 2010, 09:00 AM
I'm at the Internationaux de Strasbourg, shooting mainly with the 7D and the 400mm f/2.8.

See this thread for some results: http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=408937
(As far as I can remember only the portraits of Cirstea, Rodionova and Washington/King were shot with a 30D and 28-70mm F2.8L).

Really loving the results, the 400mm gives excellent contrast and colors, is very responsive and a superb bokeh. For instance the first two pictures of Valeria were taken through the fence and it is like the fence wasn't there. I doubt the lens will be usuable in all situations though. The combo of a APS-C sensor and 400mm, resulting in a virtual 640mm focal length, gets the action close and sometimes too close.
Out here it's very usuable, especially once after you've found the spots to shoot from, but I can imagine it will be unusuable at smaller events and/or venues. The next event I plan to go to is Luxembourg (unless Vesnina comes through, then it will be the Unicef Open) and as far as I know you're quite close to the court. I'd probably be better off with the 200mm f/2.0 but I'm afraid it's going to be the 70-200mm....

bad_angel_109
Dec 12th, 2010, 11:05 AM
i know its been ages since anyone's posted in this thread but i have a quicker question.

i'm getting the 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM II lens within the next 2 weeks and i need help buying a hoya filter for it. i was going to get a hoya pro1D but then i read comments that they're hard to clean and i heard about the hoya HD filters.

i need help deciding on whether to buy a regular hoya HD UV 77mm filter OR a hoya HD Circular Polarizer 77mm filter. :confused:

they both are 8-layer, multi coated and water proof. the Circular Polarizer HD is approx double the price of the normal HD one. but i am thinking i should just shell out the extra odd $100 to get the CP filter.

and im unsure with additional warranty options for the lens; it comes with a 1yr warranty and paying extra i can get either a 2 or 5yr added waranty. depending on which store i buy it from its an extra $100-$290 plus for the warranty.

i am tempted to buy a imported lens (some stores in melbourne do sell them and they're trying to pass them off as genuine canon australia products) to save an extra $100 or $200. then i think about the warranty being void if and when i get it repaired :(


if rix or anyone could give me a little advice it'd be much appreciated, cheers



EDIT: Hoya 77mm HD UV - $89.99 (http://www.amazon.com/Hoya-Hardened-8-layer-Multi-Coated-Digital/dp/B001G7PMNQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291644105&sr=8-1)
hoya 77mm Circular Polarizer HD - $179.99 (http://www.amazon.com/Hoya-Circular-Polarizer-Hardened-Multi-Coated/dp/B001FQC1OG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1291644105&sr=8-2)

03 RuleTheCourt
Dec 12th, 2010, 11:21 AM
Don't use filters. Haven't seen that many people use them on 70/200 II's. Especially the II, it's such a sharp workhorse that it's coated well enough to handle most conditions. (if it didn't, then Canon would've been the first to start selling filter.. right?). Just keep the sunhood on at all time, it reduces a lot of mess flying in and getting stuck to the lens.

The extra warranty might be a good option. But read the points for what you're get the insurance very carefully. Since if it's hardware warranty you're as well off on not taking it. If it would cover some kind of "omnium" formula where you get a broken front element replaced.... then go for it. :) I've had mine for 8months now, it's so well built that i'm fairly convinced a tank can drive over it and it will still work.

bad_angel_109
Dec 12th, 2010, 11:54 AM
Don't use filters. Haven't seen that many people use them on 70/200 II's. Especially the II, it's such a sharp workhorse that it's coated well enough to handle most conditions. (if it didn't, then Canon would've been the first to start selling filter.. right?). Just keep the sunhood on at all time, it reduces a lot of mess flying in and getting stuck to the lens.i appreciate your quick reply.

pretty much the only reason im getting a filter is because i'll be going to the AO again next month and it always draws a crowd - as all grand slams do. i dont want anyone to poke/damage my lens when im waiting at the side of the court fence waiting for an autograph/photo. plus it will be like 30-42+ degrees and i dont want any reflections in my photos, though i dont know how i would get reflections in my images to begin with.

The extra warranty might be a good option. But read the points for what you're get the insurance very carefully. Since if it's hardware warranty you're as well off on not taking it. If it would cover some kind of "omnium" formula where you get a broken front element replaced.... then go for it. :) I've had mine for 8months now, it's so well built that i'm fairly convinced a tank can drive over it and it will still work.as far as i know its only a hardware warranty where it will only cover manufacturer/factory faults which is a bit dodgy


to be honest i dont want to spend the extra money on warranty, a filter and a lens coat. but im feeling paranoid that my lens will get damaged some how. murphy's law :(
and the last 12 months i've been waiting for the 24-70mm 2.8 IS to get released but its all rumours, all i know is that canon recently took out a patent on the 24-70mm (non-IS) in japan/US. and if the 135mmL had IS, i would most likely buy that lens in a heartbeat.

im also getting a lens coat (http://www.amazon.com/LensCoat-Cover-70-200mm-AutoFocus-Telephoto/dp/B003LVB0NG/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1283931204&sr=1-1) which i know pretty much no one buys them. but again i dont want someone to damage my lens that i just bought.

cellophane
Dec 12th, 2010, 12:43 PM
Lucky you... I'd love to have that lens.

03 RuleTheCourt
Dec 12th, 2010, 01:53 PM
im also getting a http://rover.ebay.com/ar/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?mpt=311184172&adtype=1&size=1x1&type=3&campid=5336105959&toolid=10001 lens coat (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FLensCoat-Cover-70-200mm-AutoFocus-Telephoto%2Fdp%2FB003LVB0NG%2Fref%3Dsr_1_1%3Fs%3De lectronics%26ie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1283931204%26sr%3D1-1&tag=5336105959-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325) which i know pretty much no one buys them. but again i dont want someone to damage my lens that i just bought.

This is your first time buying into the Canon Pro L series, isn't it? :)

Why would you buy a lens coat, with those temperatures you're just better off holding a white lens compared to a black one that attracts the heat....
Whatever floats your boat i guess, It is your money. I just feel most of the accessories are quite unnecessary since this lens gets used by press photographers in warzones like Irak/Iran, where usually the photographer is the first to get shot ;) the lens on the other hand was made to survive.

smarties
Dec 12th, 2010, 02:15 PM
The 24-70mm 2.8 original is my walk around lens and it's such a stable lens, don't really see the advantage of putting an IS mechanism in there. It's all marketing if you ask me...

cellophane
Dec 12th, 2010, 02:53 PM
The 24-70mm 2.8 original is my walk around lens and it's such a stable lens, don't really see the advantage of putting an IS mechanism in there. It's all marketing if you ask me...

It's handy for stationary objects if you are walking around at night without a tripod

bad_angel_109
Dec 13th, 2010, 02:48 AM
This is your first time buying into the Canon Pro L series, isn't it? :)

Why would you buy a lens coat, with those temperatures you're just better off holding a white lens compared to a black one that attracts the heat....
Whatever floats your boat i guess, It is your money. I just feel most of the accessories are quite unnecessary since this lens gets used by press photographers in warzones like Irak/Iran, where usually the photographer is the first to get shot ;) the lens on the other hand was made to survive.yep its my first L lens. from all the reviews i've read since it was first released in april/may i've read its built like a workhorse and built to last.

kind of another pro (opposed to a con) to get a lens coat is hopefully i can pass it off as just a normal black canon lens and not be bugged by the security guards who always asked me about my lens back in jan.

im going on the weekend to buy the lens from the store (still dont know which store as im still trying to figure out warranty options and such). i'll have to order the lens coat from amazon since every camera store i've been it/made contact with (at leats 8 stores) they dont sell them. and i know since the lens coat is black i know its going to attract and absorb the sun's heat more than without the lens coat.

any suggestions would help. and i realised that with my 7D if i bought the 135L its focal length would be 210mm not 135mm, damn. kinda of wish i had bought a full frame camera - maybe in the future

cellophane
Dec 13th, 2010, 01:43 PM
any suggestions would help. and i realised that with my 7D if i bought the 135L its focal length would be 210mm not 135mm, damn. kinda of wish i had bought a full frame camera - maybe in the future

So buy the 85mm f1.8 or Sigma or 85L instead to give you 135mm - what's the problem?

DOUBLEFIST
Dec 13th, 2010, 04:23 PM
I know it's slow (f4.0), but I frigging love this lens on my 5D.

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=canon+F4L+USM+lens&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=NsC&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivs&resnum=3&biw=1342&bih=696&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=3062853749827011275&ei=MlYGTcCIJY6isAPcxcSJDQ&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CE4Q8wIwAA#

DOUBLEFIST
Dec 13th, 2010, 04:27 PM
...i realised that with my 7D if i bought the 135L its focal length would be 210mm not 135mm, damn. kinda of wish i had bought a full frame camera - maybe in the future

I'm not a big fan of cropped sensor, but the 7D's still a nice camera. But if extreme dof is important to you, then check out the 5D.

bad_angel_109
Dec 14th, 2010, 05:38 AM
I'm not a big fan of cropped sensor, but the 7D's still a nice camera. But if extreme dof is important to you, then check out the 5D.i like DOF, but image quaity and sharpness are a must for me. and the colour from the image has to match the subject as much as possible with beautiful, smooth bokeh.

im a bit picky i know :)

So buy the 85mm f1.8 or Sigma or 85L instead to give you 135mm - what's the problem?because my camera's an APS-C camera wouldnt that mean a 135mm lens is equivalent to 210mm or something like that? it's a 1.6x crop.


for the last 50 mins i've been talking to the camera store guy about lenses, warranty's, lens coats and filters, etc. im slowly reading through this (http://www.hoyafilter.com/pdf/HOYACatalog.pdf) and i think i'll just stick to the hoya HD UV filter rather than buy the cicular polarizing filter.

the shop that im most likely going to buy it from has a hardware warranty but another shop (which is sells genuine and impoted 'grey market' items) has their own specific 'wear and tear' warranty (in addition to the extended canon warranty) which is $450 for 2yrs and $650 for 4yrs. is it worth it?

going to buy the lens coat from amazon (if they have it in stock) and perhaps the filter. im trying to get the cheapest price because im still an amateur photographer and its a lot of money to spend on a piece of glass.


i still need assistance/suggestions though. hoya HD filters here are pretty much always double the price on amazon prices.


EDIT: has anyone here bought a L lens from amazon before? or an imported ('grey market') L lens to save a few hundred dollars? was it any good? has any problems. if it wasnt for the astronomical, rip off VAT and GST prices (and the shipping costs) i'd buy all my camera gear from amazon

ndfgvb
Dec 14th, 2010, 06:32 AM
Itís really a nice and helpful piece of information. Iím glad that you shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.
__________________________________
I am engaged inbronze casting (http://www.cncasting-forging.com),impact wrench (http://www.dino-power.com),baby stroller (http://www.noblerbaby.com/),welcome to my bloghttp://www.cncasting-forging.com/blog

bad_angel_109
Dec 14th, 2010, 07:04 AM
It’s really a nice and helpful piece of information. I’m glad that you shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.^ lol i made this thread over a year ago.

have been calling up camera stores in the latter half of the day after class. this is all for the 70-200mm 2.8 USM IS II lens, hoya HD UV filter and extended 2yr canon warranty. any comments about these deals/what to buy/not to buy would be appreciated.

deal 1. lens only = $2850
deal 2. lens + filter = $2926
deal 3. lens + filter + extended warranty = $2999 (original price of just the lens)

it's only a hardware warranty (manufacturer/factory faults) so i don't think i'm going to get it, i'll probably get option 2, but i have to wait approx 7 working days for the filter to ship in to the store from japan. the HD UV filter here is $160-$185 (depending on the shop you buy it from) where as on amazon its $90 USD. and i dont think i'll get VAT and GST for that which is good - save at least $60 (once it gets converted to AUD).

cellophane
Dec 14th, 2010, 01:17 PM
because my camera's an APS-C camera wouldnt that mean a 135mm lens is equivalent to 210mm or something like that? it's a 1.6x crop.


That's why I said you could buy an 85mm 1.8 to give you 135mm equivalent on APS-C

bad_angel_109
Dec 15th, 2010, 05:45 AM
That's why I said you could buy an 85mm 1.8 to give you 135mm equivalent on APS-Cohh sorry, now i get it.

bad_angel_109
Dec 17th, 2010, 01:04 AM
i just called the store to order in my filter, approx 7-10 business days to ship in from japan. will pick up the lens on sunday ( i might take a pic of it and post it on here). don't know if i should pay an extra $20-odd dollars to buy a bag for the filter.

this video helped me a bit to make up my mind (www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vvz_d6APXk) about whether to buy the circular polarizor or not.

not getting the extended warranty because i don't think i'll need it. i mean what kind of manufacturer/factory faults can happen? :scratch:

bad_angel_109
Dec 21st, 2010, 02:46 AM
bought the lens on sunday then annoyingly i had to go back yesterday to pick up the filter. i only just unboxed it 1hour ago since i've been busy. haven't had a chance to test it out yet - experiencing torrential rain.

here's 2 pics.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6213/p10106732.jpg
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/7514/p10106772.png


thanks to all would gave their contribution, been appreciated :)

cassiusclay
Dec 21st, 2010, 05:37 AM
I want one of those cameras that are SLR or DLR I don't know which it is, but one that takes heaps of pictures quickly or smth.

Can someone tell me which one to buy :sobbing: There's so many, I just want an affordable one with great quality. So confusing.

Nikkiri
Dec 21st, 2010, 06:38 AM
Canon 1000D is pretty affordable and will give you nice quality pictures

Rix643
Dec 21st, 2010, 10:59 AM
I completely forgot about this thread, I kinda have to apologize to bad_angel for not being able to offer any assistance (on the other hand, you could have PM'ed me..) Second I have to congratulate you on your new purchases, but at the same time I also feel a bit sorry for you (and your wallet): you've probably seen the first results and you'll probably be bitten by the infamous L-bug by now. One advice: don't switch to L-primes or it will get worse. ;)

Luckily you discovered the differences between UV and polarizing filters by yourself. In short as I see it (but please correct me if I'm wrong), UV filters are mainly used to avoid haze at high altitudes and to protect your front element whereas a CP filter is used to enhance contrast (esp. when shooting skies) or to eliminate reflections. A nast y side effect of a CP-filter is that it absorbs about 1 to 1.5 stop of light which pretty much annuls your extra investment in a piece of f/2.8-glass. A disadvantage both type of filters have: they add extra glass and by doing so also more blur and flare. Don't use them unless you feel you really need the extra protection. As 03 said, using the hood offers far better protection against both damaging the front element and against flare. I use it at all times, even indoors (in fact, the hood of my 70-200mm is the most battered piece of equipment I have). On the other hand, I don't use filters that much (and I own several UV, UV-protect and CP filters, B+W and Tiffen), except when I'm alongside (windy) clay and grass courts and on my 16-35mm to make it weather-sealed.

The 135mm f/2.0 non-IS lens is a great lens for photographing tennis, especially indoors. With tennis you won't use shutter speeds slower than 1/135th of a second, so IS has limited use here. It's superfast both in aperture and in focussing and one of the sharpest lenses around (according to some, in sharpness it's only beaten by the 300mm f/2.8 and the older 200mm f/1.8, both very expensive lenses). And for you: it's black. It will also accept the 1.4x and 2.0x extenders. When you have the space, it is the portraitlens of choice on an APS-C body. With the 200mm f/2.0, it's number 1 on my 'To buy'-list and I'm pretty sure someday it will be on yours too...
The afore mentioned 85mm f/1.2 L is more limited in it 's use because of a very slow focussing speed. Great for full body shots though on an APS-C body (superb bokeh), but to enjoy the very small DOF you really need a FF-camera.

Anyway, congrats on your new equipment, looking forward to see some pics!! :yeah:

cellophane
Dec 21st, 2010, 04:05 PM
The afore mentioned 85mm f/1.2 L is more limited in it 's use because of a very slow focussing speed. Great for full body shots though on an APS-C body (superb bokeh), but to enjoy the very small DOF you really need a FF-camera.

I was taking about the 85mm 1.8 (don't own it, but I was under impression it was pretty fast). Or you can get the new Sigma 85 1.4 HSM if you want better focusing speed... it's a very nice lens that's pretty comparable to the L.

Rix643
Dec 21st, 2010, 05:13 PM
So buy the 85mm f1.8 or Sigma or 85L instead to give you 135mm - what's the problem?

I thought you meant the 85mm f1.2L with the latter one..

cellophane
Dec 25th, 2010, 06:05 PM
I thought you meant the 85mm f1.2L with the latter one..

Oh yeah I was... I wasn't really recommending he buy one... I am sure it's amazing lens... Personally, I would buy the Sigma 85 1.4 HSM since it's pretty similar to the L in IQ but lower price and much faster focusing.

bad_angel_109
Jan 11th, 2011, 10:10 AM
I completely forgot about this thread, I kinda have to apologize to bad_angel for not being able to offer any assistance (on the other hand, you could have PM'ed me..) Second I have to congratulate you on your new purchases, but at the same time I also feel a bit sorry for you (and your wallet): you've probably seen the first results and you'll probably be bitten by the infamous L-bug by now. One advice: don't switch to L-primes or it will get worse. ;)

Luckily you discovered the differences between UV and polarizing filters by yourself. In short as I see it (but please correct me if I'm wrong), UV filters are mainly used to avoid haze at high altitudes and to protect your front element whereas a CP filter is used to enhance contrast (esp. when shooting skies) or to eliminate reflections. A nast y side effect of a CP-filter is that it absorbs about 1 to 1.5 stop of light which pretty much annuls your extra investment in a piece of f/2.8-glass. A disadvantage both type of filters have: they add extra glass and by doing so also more blur and flare. Don't use them unless you feel you really need the extra protection. As 03 said, using the hood offers far better protection against both damaging the front element and against flare.its ok i had forgot about this thread til i was cleaning out my email and still had a notification email about this thread. thanks, its a pretty expensive lens as all L lenses are. its quite a piece of glass, very smooth focusing ring and the sort. i was thinking of buying a 50mm f1.8 II lens but im content with my kit lens and new lens. im still very much a beginner with an excellent L lens. the infinity thing is a bit hard for me to get used to. i've ordered a lens coats, microfibre cleaning cloth and a new neck strap - the generic canon one is not for comfort, IMO it just makes the owner a walking billboard for canon. im just waiting for that to arrive, should receive it in the next couple of days.

i know the basics of filters. i was only researching UV and CP filters. i completely agree with you about the lens hood, it really is the best protection for a lens. but now i know my (L) lens and camera are fully weather-sealed.

i dont know how to take photos of sunsets, having a tripod would probably help but here's one of my pics i took the other night. i know i shouldnt have, but i left the filter on, i was only taking photos for a few mins because the sun was disappearing over the horizon. and recently its been raining a lot so i havent been able to go outdoors and take pics in the sunlight. sunset (http://i51.tinypic.com/2nu7ep5.jpg)

sarddenso
Jan 11th, 2011, 10:29 AM
The 50mm f1.8 is not the best built lens around, but it is very cheap.
As long as you take care of your equipment it should be ok.
Having the f1.8 does give you a lot of creativity possibilities with very shallow depth of field.

bad_angel_109
Jan 15th, 2011, 10:10 AM
does anyone here know much about tripods and ball heads (plates, panning, tilt-shit/ball). that kind of stuff. im thinking of getting a manfrotto 055xprob (before i was considering the 190xprob) and i've got a few tripod heads to consider buying. i only want 1 pair of legs and 1 head. my budget is probably up to $500 (together) as im thinking of getting the 580x II speedlite flash. thoughts?



original, tsonga pic (http://i53.tinypic.com/8ywc1v.jpg)

i really should've used my 70-200 lens more than i actually did. i couldnt remember wat the settings were and what i was supposed to use. i have a 2.8 lens yet i dont actually use that aperture til the end of the day lol. take a look at the EXIF data and u'll understand and i keep forgetting that i need to update my firmware. i forgot to get the first version now im thinking of getting the 3.0 version thats out. do i need to download the previous 2 versions? im completely confused




3 more pics that i've resized and posted in their respective forum
http://i52.tinypic.com/f00y2r.jpg
http://i52.tinypic.com/280jrr8.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/20rmd83.jpg

sarddenso
Jan 15th, 2011, 10:28 AM
I've got the 055Pro legs and the 322RC2 Joystick head.
I got that one because I thought it was cool! ;)

The legs can be a bit heavy but they are quite stable.

It can be a bit tricky with the head to fix one axis. Eg if you get the height correct and just want to adjust sideways it can be a bit hard.
Same with a ball head I would think.
The ones which look ugly with all the knobs would be better at being able to finely adjust one axis.
But the drawback with them is they would be slower to adjust.

Guess it depends on what you are planning on using it for.

As for settings for tennis, I found last week during the Medibank that to freeze the racquet you need a shutter speed at least 1/1000.

You don't always have to use f2.8 of course.
At f2.8 and 200mm focal length the depth of field you get in your picture may be pretty small so the focus will have to be very accurate if you know what I mean?
Canon does have good AF so you will have a good chance of keeping the photo in focus.
But sometimes you need a smaller aperture so that more of the picture is in focus.

Rix643
Jan 15th, 2011, 06:05 PM
When shooting tennis, and I am using my 400mm f/2.8 on an 7D I have no problems leaving the aperture at 2.8. The AF works very fast and I never miss a shot because the camera couldn't focus quick enough (and the 400mm has an even smaller DOF).

The firmware is on 1.2.3 now. you can upgrade from any other older firmware version, but once upgraded you can't go back to 1.1.x versions.

cellophane
Jan 15th, 2011, 06:12 PM
Dang, I can't wait for my lens to get here. I want to take some tennis pics :(

I bought an oldie Tamron 70-210 2.8 in Japan for just 260 bucks.

bad_angel_109
Jan 17th, 2011, 11:22 AM
not the best pics (especially the dinara ones). with the filter i've found i either have to underexposes so there's contrast and u can see the colours better without hazy blue in the pics or sometimes overexposes to compensates for the clouds and that kind of thing.

danka
http://i53.tinypic.com/67prlx.jpg
http://i53.tinypic.com/avoarc.jpg

dinara
http://i53.tinypic.com/rj48dv.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/moxvb.jpg
http://i53.tinypic.com/2zoyrgy.jpg


ana
http://i51.tinypic.com/ip8djn.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/246l8oo.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/2z5u51d.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/qp2xxe.jpg

bad_angel_109
Jan 22nd, 2011, 11:51 AM
exposure and autofocus problems (miught post might autofocus problems pics in a day or two)
http://i54.tinypic.com/2iiigw4.jpg
http://i53.tinypic.com/6srqy1.jpg (looks at his forearm)
http://i51.tinypic.com/25ew8qf.jpg


any suggestion on how to fix this besides photoshop? i need to get the settings right

sarddenso
Jan 22nd, 2011, 12:07 PM
Do you remember what metering mode you were using?
Were you shooting in spot metering mode?

The Maria photo looks to me like the fluro orange may have confused the metering.

The photos with Andy are pretty tricky since they have such a range in brightness. The full sun and his shadowed face for example.
And the front on shot with the background in shadow and the court in full sunlight.

Difficult conditions to shoot in and cameras have a finite dynamic range which means it can't keep everything exposed correctly.

I think you said you got a UV filter right?
In theory it shouldn't affect the exposure metering.
Did you do any shots without the filter on to see if it made the metering better?

Rix643
Jan 22nd, 2011, 03:37 PM
Hard to tell from those tiny pics.
If you need help on how to improve your pictures, it is better to post a resized picture and a 100% crop of a significant part with all EXIF-information included and with the original color depth.

I agree with most of what sarddenso said, except for the Maria pic. It is my guess you used auto white balance, and this is what was confused by Maria's dress and visor. Unfortunately, the 7D is known for it's bad AWB mode.

Rix643
Jan 22nd, 2011, 04:08 PM
The Maria pic with white balance corrected.
Before:
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/Rix643/WTAWorld/fotodraad/2iiigw4.jpg
After:
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/Rix643/WTAWorld/fotodraad/2iiigw4a.jpg

It's mostly done by eye, so there's a certain amount of personal taste involved, and there is just not much you can do with such a small picture, but it gives you (hopefully) an idea of the importance of getting your white balance in order.

(now rush off to your local dealer and buy a white or a 18% grey chart... ;))

bad_angel_109
Jan 25th, 2011, 11:27 AM
berdych
http://i54.tinypic.com/280i16x.jpg

worse. exposure. ever. lol. exposure & autofocus problems all in 1 pic

Rix643
Jan 25th, 2011, 11:42 AM
That's what you get when you use a smart camera.
It refuses to focus on such an object. :p