Ok, now my next issue.

[timmyquest]

Since i'm getting a 300D i'm saving $600, $600 which i figured would have taken me until may or so to save, At about that time i'll be getting an (estimated) $400-$500 tax return.

That gives me about $1000 to spend, i figure it'll allow me to get a 550ex and a decent telephoto lens?

Which though...the bigger the better, the sharper the better...

[defordphoto]

The bigger, sharper AND faster the better. :)

The 550EX is $329 at B&H with a $25 rebate so there goes $315 or so including shipping. So now you have $685 to spend...hmmmm. I'm thinking something in the Sigma line may suit you and satisfy your telephoto hunger. Either that or you can save more $$ for L-glass, but man that stuff is expensive. Yeah, probably a Sigma lens would be best. I don't have any experince with Sigma so I'll let someone else pop in here.

[Belmondo]

70-200 f/4 L. The little brother of the f/2.8L IS version, and it sells for almost $1000 less. It's only 1 f-stop slower, and will do the same job in the vast majority of daytime shooting situations.

Not telephoto, but the 17-40L is also a very good lens for general purpose shooting.

Good luck.

Tom

[timmyquest]

belmondo wrote:
70-200 f/4 L. The little brother of the f/2.8L IS version, and it sells for almost $1000 less. It's only 1 f-stop slower, and will do the same job in the vast majority of daytime shooting situations.

Not telephoto, but the 17-40L is also a very good lens for general purpose shooting.

Good luck.

Tom


Well i do have a ****ty sigma telephoto lens so investing in an awsome general purpose lens isnt out of the question either. All i know is that i want to have one hell of a nice telephoto by next august so i can get some pictures of my old H/S football team.

[Whaler]

No Brainer. . . . Canon 70 ~ 200 L f4

[timmyquest]

whaler wrote:
No Brainer. . . . Canon 70 ~ 200 L f4

"L"
USM
AF

200mm

Nearly perfect...i was hoping for a little bigger but thats the price i'll have to pay i guess.

It doesnt have to be a zoom either guys, i prefer that with my budget, but it isnt needed.

[timmyquest]

I know of i'v heard some mixed feelings about the extenders, but they are fairly cheap...so uhh...sup with them :D

[timmyquest]

Ok, work, plus tax refund, maybe an ealry graduation present :-) well...whatya get?

This'll take some great football pictures...

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/images/lenses/ef_35-350_35/ef35_350.jpg

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ef_35-350_35/ef_35-350_35.html

http://www.adorama.com/REFBY.TPL?&SKU=CA35350AFU

[justme_dc]

That 35-350mm is fairly widely known to be the softest "L" zoom available. the 100-400IS comes in second. It's a useful lens if you are a journalist or on a tight budget. If you can spare the extra money the Canon 70-200L or even the Sigma 70-200EX will be a sharper lens for you even with a teleconverter.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I beleive the 100-400mm IS is cheaper?? and it is a better lens really.. not only do you get the longer telphoto,. but you get Image Stabilization as well with the 100-400mm IS.

Two quick suggestions.

1. Maybe look at the Sigma 500 Flash? I think it's under 200 for a very similar set of specs to the 550EX?

2. There are two excellent Canon "L" primes that you can find for about $1000.00 (or less used,. the 300mm can be found at www.keh.com for about $800.00 or so)

The 400mm f/5.6 and the 300mm f/4 IS
Both "L" primes and both fantastic. To my eyes the 400 was sharper and it definately has faster AF (oddly?) But the 300mm offers the IS and is light enough to use hand held.

If a zoom is the desire, and you want to spend less than a grand,. then look at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX.

Then there are both the Canon 70-200mm f/4 and Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8... both about the same price...

[timmyquest]

Thanks, did a little more research and the 100-400 seems like a much better buy.

[Wickedfn4u]

I just got my 70-200 sigma 2.8 and love it. I had the canon 75-300 f4 and was not happy. Go fast and you can get the tele-converter 1.4 or 2x if you have the light for the shot and have a great zoom.

[defordphoto]

Many people dog the 100-400L but it is, in spite of what you read, a pretty darn sharp zoom. It meets or beats some of the pricey L primes in several, but definitely not all tests.

Several members here, including me, have the 100-400.

[timmyquest]

wickedfn4u wrote:
I just got my 70-200 sigma 2.8 and love it. I had the canon 75-300 f4 and was not happy. Go fast and you can get the tele-converter 1.4 or 2x if you have the light for the shot and have a great zoom.

I've looked, i really need something with 300mm or more

[Wickedfn4u]

Well don't forget with the digital cameras there is a 1.6 factor that takes the lens 112-320mm. Then if use the t-c you will get 1.4 or 2x time that. Just a suggestion.

[Jim_T]

The 35-350L is $100.00 more than the 100-400L The 35-350 is a 10X zoom and the 100-400 is a 4X zoom.

General consensus says that the less difference in focal length, the sharper the lens.. And of course primes with no zoom are generally the sharpest.

But I think one really has to consider the application.

A 300 f/2.8 will beat the 35-350 at 300mm hands down any way you look at it.. But what good is a 300 f/2.8 prime if your subject is moving rapidly and has moved so close you can no longer get it all in the frame ?

Sure you can twist off the 300 then install your 35 mm prime, but depending on what you're shooting, by that time it could be too late.. Zooms with a wide focal length do have a place.. Even if you are trading off resolution...

------
DISCLAIMER.. I DO NOT FAVOUR ZOOMS OVER PRIMES. I JUST ACCEPT THERE ARE ARE TIMES A ZOOM IS MORE DESIREABLE. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A POINT AND SHOOT PHOTOGRAPHER.

(Had to include the disclaimer... My opions seem to be getting misinterpreted a lot lately :) )

[Canuck]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
If a zoom is the desire, and you want to spend less than a grand,. then look at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX.

Then there are both the Canon 70-200mm f/4 and Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8... both about the same price...

CDS,
This brings up another good question. This is a money doesn't matter issue, but The 120-300 F2.8 EX that I have is 1 fstop faster than the 100-300 F4 EX, and was wondering about the sharpness of the 2 of them, being that the one I have is almost double the cost. I seem to be about the only one recommending it. Or is it an if you have the extra cash to blow, why not kinda thing?

I'm also kinda thinking ahead here, to after the Canon 24-70 F2.8L lens, to bridge the gap. The underground in London is all about the "Mind the Gap!" That is the space between the platform and the train itself. Minding this gap is the 70-120mm hole. I'm thinking the 70-200 would do nicely, or what would really be cool is a 70-300 F2.8 EX. Although this might be too big a gap to have really good qualities like the 120-300 has. Just rambling...

Tim, if you had about $1900 for lens alone, I'd reccommend the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 EX lens I have. This one is a big 'un! Here's a pic I took with it, and this is a JPEG, completely unmodded other than a crop.
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2161111
This was taken 6 Sept 03. That said, an F4 lens is your next best option and please go either Sigma EX, or Canon L!! The difference between those entioned and consumer glass is unreal! Just trust me on this and you will thank me later, although your wallet/credit card will not. Can't help you there.

[Belmondo]

Hey Canuck.

Happy New Year.

It's time to get over the Concorde. Get on with your life.

Take care. Tom

[CyberDyneSystems]

Canuck wrote:
CyberDyneSystems wrote:
If a zoom is the desire, and you want to spend less than a grand,. then look at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX.

Then there are both the Canon 70-200mm f/4 and Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8... both about the same price...

CDS,
This brings up another good question. This is a money doesn't matter issue, but The 120-300 F2.8 EX that I have is 1 fstop faster than the 100-300 F4 EX, and was wondering about the sharpness of the 2 of them, being that the one I have is almost double the cost. I seem to be about the only one recommending it. Or is it an if you have the extra cash to blow, why not kinda thing?



Canuck,. I only mention lenses that fit in the price range they are looking at. He stated he would have $1,000.00 and all the lenses I recomended were about that price or less. I only started to discuss the 100-400mm when the subject was allready broached, and some interest displayed.

It would be easy to recomend a lens twice as expensive (roughly) and I agree,. getting the fast f/2.8 is a great way to go. But why stop at doubling the guys price point wiht the $2000.00 120-300mm f/2.8?

Why not tell him to get a $7000.00 600mm f/4?

//not to mention,. I usually only mention lenses that I have some experience with.. even it is breif. I do love that 120-300mm... but I have yet to even hold one!

[Sketcher]

If I were you, you were me and had about a grand to blow... I'd be going with the 550ex and 70-200 F4L.

Wait a minute... that's what I DID do. And I don't regret it for a second (ok, mabye for a second - but that's all).

[timmyquest]

Why not tell him to get a $7000.00 600mm f/4?


Now that you mention it...

Naaaa

[Canuck]

belmondo wrote:
Hey Canuck.

Happy New Year.

It's time to get over the Concorde. Get on with your life.

Take care. Tom



Tom,
Happy New Year to you too!
I just haven't changed the Concorde bit I recon I'm over it, but what an awesome aircraft! In the mean time, I gotta come up with something new and clever and that could take some time.