Eeep. Over my head but smiling. Lens advice for freelancing?

[IkonFoto]

I emailed some local newspapers to see if anyone wanted to use photos I shot last night at a local candidates debate (election time in Canada). To my surprise one of the editors not only wants to use the photos (yay! paid for photos!), he wants me to freelance. He mentioned needing coverage of "sports-action" events.

My problems is that my only 2 lenses are the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 and 50 f1.8. I have been unemployed since moving away from Toronto to a small town, and have virtually no money to spend on lenses but realize I will need more zoom.

I was looking at the SIGMA 70-300MM 4-5.6 APO MACRO CANON AF (at www.henrys.com (http://www.henrys.com/). It's $300 CAD, which is about the ceiling I feel comfortable and responsible spending.

Has anyone used this lens? Good? Bad? Can you recommend anything else? I would be willing to go up to $400 if the lens was significantly superior to the Sigma.

Many thanks for any input.

Heather

[timmyquest]

Ask if they've got any equipment laying around. I dont know how large of an operation they are running but even my local newspaper (which is fairly small) has a good collection of canon glass/bodies.

[PJ]

Well, I was looking for that exact same lens on ebay and noticed that in 2 auctions. The lens was selling for as is because it woulden't stop down anymore.

I don't know if this just happened to be a conicidence but it turned me off from that lens. Hopefully someone here will know more about it.

[IkonFoto]

Thanks for the responses. It's a fairly small newspaper, but they may have something lying around. I'd rather wait until I need something beyond 300mm to ask, though, just because I'm afraid I'd look unprofessional (and we'll just keep that between us :wink: ).

Some of the other inexpensive lenses that zoom to 300mm I found are:

CANON EF 75-300MM/4-5.6 II/III - $269.99 CAD
TAMRON 70-300MM CANON SILVER F4.0-5.6 $299.99 CAD
CANON EF 75-300MM/4-5.6 USM II/III AF - $299.99 CAD

Is it worth it for me to bite the bullet and move up a few hundred dollars for either of these?

SIGMA 28-300MM M F3.5-6.3 MACRO CANON - $429.99 CAD
CANON EF 100-300MM/4.5-5.6 USM AF - $499.99 CAD

I know there are some excellent sites that offer reviews of lenses, but I can't seem to figure out the Google keywords to find them. Any suggestions?

Again, thanks so much for all the help.

Heather

[RichardtheSane]

Well since you already have that rance covered, I wouldn't bother with the 28-300mm, however I have a canon 100-300mm that you mentioned and it is a remarkably good lens!

The sigma lenses that will not stop down are because they are old lenses and that is a known fault with them on newer camers sucha s the 10D and 300D. What camera do you have?

Something it is worth remembering is if you buy better lenses now they will give you more use over the years :)

[aam1234]

If you are going this route (CANON EF 75-300MM/4-5.6 USM II/III AF - $299.99 CAD ) you might want to consider the one with IS (Image Stabilization). It helps you get sharper photos by avoiding camera shake. I don't have that lens so i can't give any opinion about it (and I'm not an expert, so you don't want my opinion anayway).

This lens is disscused to death and i believe there is a thread going on right now about it. I'll post the link if I can find it.

[timmyquest]

All i can tell you is to not skimp on telephoto lenses. Shorter focal lengths tend to be a little more forgiving, but the longer ones will get pretty ugly if you cant get some good glass.


I love this shot, but it would have been a heck of a lot better had i not had to shoot at f/11 on my 70-300 sigma.

http://www.antiwall.com/april2004/images/0002.jpg

I honestly dont know much about the lenses you've shown here, but just remmeber that most the time you get what you pay for.

[awagner]

I Bought the Canon ef 75-300 4-5.6 III usm. I am petty happy with it. I have a 300d. Ive read that at 300mm it tends to loose quality in the pic .And i didnt really notice it until i tried a Polarized filter on it (optex), at that point it really showed at 300mm (i even tought i had hooked my dioptry adjustement of my viewfinder). But without it it gives pretty acceptable results.(on my part)

http://pages.infinit.net/awphoto/cyul/index.htm (there pretty small in size for the web ...)


ps. the filter was not the problem it worked great on the 18-55

[NILOLIGIST]

Hi,

Congrats!! Why don't you see what you need first and then rent. Perhaps you can expense it to them.

That will give you time see exactly what you need. Since you are not on staff it might not be a good idea to buy any lenses that you don't need to since you are out of work.

Whatever you do I am sure you will be great!!

Again, congrats.

NiL,

[kahfluie]

He mentioned needing coverage of "sports-action" events.



Heather,

You may run into problems if the sporting events are at night. I just don't think that a f4-5.6 lens will be able to get you the shots you or the local newspaper will want if used at night under stadium lights... then again I could be wrong. I'm sure the experts here can correct me or clarify.

This is definitely a tough call, especially when you're on a tight budget.

Lou

[nemesis099]

I have the quantaray version of the 70-300 lense and I took some pics at an Orioles baseball game. I'm not at home now so i can't post them but I think they came out ok. The stadium lights didn't seem to be bright enough for me to get the pictures that I wanted but before the lights went off I got some good pics. I'll post them Sunday night or Monday depending on when I get home.

-Newell


In my opinion I think it might be better to rent a better L lense and see how well that works at first instead of paying for that sigma lense. Just my opinion.

[bolling]

I just sold that very lens a few weeks ago with a canon 500d closeup lens on this forum for 200. If you look on ebay you can find that lens brand new for about $160 US dollars. I think for the money it is a very good buy but I also agree you might be better off with the canon version with the IS. That would give you a couple of f stops. The sigma has a nice macro feature that gives you 1:2 magnification but that isn't very important for what you want to use it for. I just purchased the canon 100-400 with IS and I wouldn't buy another telephoto lens without the image stabalizer and that is why I suggested the canon lens.

[JoeTampa]

If you are shooting sports at night you will definately want a fast lens. This becomes critical with zooms, which typically are slower at the telephoto side. Example: Shooting baseball in a domed stadium at night, I was limited to 1/180 @ f/5.6 with a 100-400L at around 400mm. This wasn't even close to being able to stop a bat mid-swing or a pitcher mid-stride. Made for some nice base shots, but nothing more. That's why you will normally see f/2.8 primes at ballgames.