70-200mm 2.8L on 300D

[Kenski]

Is there ANYONE out there that has tried this combo with higher ISO settings and happy with the results? I am very close to a purchase of the 70-200mm 2.8L and still own the 300D... I just want to make sure that if I shoot SPORTS TYPE EVENTS and bump up the ISO setting that the images will still be crisp... I would like to build my LENS inventory up before upgrading my camera... Actually, I'm trying to find some place to rent one in the Chicago/Milwaukee area for a day or two to play with it to see if that is what I want or not...

Thanks for all the help...

[DocFrankenstein]

Awesome lens AFAIK. I have a similar 70-200 2.8 sigma and it's really good.

The noise increase is gonna be "usual" and doesn't really depend on the type of lens you use.

[timmyquest]

www.questphotos.com/football

Take a look around...almost all are shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 L on a 300D and 550EX

The night shots were with the flash at ISO 800-1600 at 1/200

[Kenski]

www.questphotos.com/football

Take a look around...almost all are shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 L on a 300D and 550EX

The night shots were with the flash at ISO 800-1600 at 1/200

WOW! Hey, thanks ALOT! I was alittle nervous that the lens might be TOO much for the camera but I have had alot of calls for it and my 28-300 Tamron 3.5-6.3 just doesn't fill the bill....


I just picked up the 550ex and FIGURES they release the 580... I guess I can use the 550 for a slave later for the 580 if I decide to go with a 20D 1D....

[timmyquest]

Say if the lens fits then it cant be too much ;-)

[DocFrankenstein]

http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=y3qd27&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

If you're wondering about the ruggedness of the 300D body, then don't. It's a pic I took with my S1 IS. The sigma weighs 1.5 kg and is obviously unsupported.

I carry it like that quite often. Not a single problem.

[Kenski]

http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=y3qd27&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

If you're wondering about the ruggedness of the 300D body, then don't. It's a pic I took with my S1 IS. The sigma weighs 1.5 kg and is obviously unsupported.

I carry it like that quite often. Not a single problem.

Its not the ruggedness, the quality.. I don't want to pick up the lens and not be able to use it to the full ability if I can't... Why waste the money... I would rather pick up a new camera first then...

[DocFrankenstein]

You're not gonna exactly "waste" the money. You're gonna get a piece of equipment that's gonna work for a looong time.

But of course if you want to use it for the "full ability" you need nothing less than the 1Ds :lol:

A new body is not gonna make your pics look better if you have crappy optics such as your 28-300. At this point, if you're deciding to upgrade, then a good lens which outresolves the rebel CMOS sensor will help you much better than some other.

[Kenski]

You're not gonna exactly "waste" the money. You're gonna get a piece of equipment that's gonna work for a looong time.

But of course if you want to use it for the "full ability" you need nothing less than the 1Ds :lol:

A new body is not gonna make your pics look better if you have crappy optics such as your 28-300. At this point, if you're deciding to upgrade, then a good lens which outresolves the rebel CMOS sensor will help you much better than some other.


Well, don't you think there will be less noise @ higher ISO with the 20D over the 300D?

[DocFrankenstein]

Well, don't you think there will be less noise @ higher ISO with the 20D over the 300D?
No idea. No clue... just not enough info right now. Possible though.

[timmyquest]

You're not gonna exactly "waste" the money. You're gonna get a piece of equipment that's gonna work for a looong time.

But of course if you want to use it for the "full ability" you need nothing less than the 1Ds :lol:

A new body is not gonna make your pics look better if you have crappy optics such as your 28-300. At this point, if you're deciding to upgrade, then a good lens which outresolves the rebel CMOS sensor will help you much better than some other.


Well, don't you think there will be less noise @ higher ISO with the 20D over the 300D?

Even if there is a medicore lens is a medicore lens no matter what camera you put it on.

[Kenski]

You're not gonna exactly "waste" the money. You're gonna get a piece of equipment that's gonna work for a looong time.

But of course if you want to use it for the "full ability" you need nothing less than the 1Ds :lol:

A new body is not gonna make your pics look better if you have crappy optics such as your 28-300. At this point, if you're deciding to upgrade, then a good lens which outresolves the rebel CMOS sensor will help you much better than some other.


Well, don't you think there will be less noise @ higher ISO with the 20D over the 300D?

Even if there is a medicore lens is a medicore lens no matter what camera you put it on.

Hey, thanks for the pics... You sent the one I was hoping for! :) I think the wife is alittle more convinced... Now, IS or NON-IS?? :) lol... I'm probably going to go NON-IS because I just can't think of a reason to have it... Monopod is my IS... I don't see a need for it really..

[Kenski]

A new body is not gonna make your pics look better if you have crappy optics such as your 28-300.

BTW, The Tamron 28-300 is not a bad lens. It takes so VERY nice pictures... I am VERY happy with it... VERY happy.. My pictures from the INDY 500 were AMAZING but a 2.8 would of been better. it is a macro lens though and it is just AWESOME for macro photos..

[timmyquest]

For some reason i thought you had said the EF 75-300 which although isnt a bad lens, isn't near the quality of the 70-200.

Glad the pics helped, i'd suggest saving the cash on IS version but thats just me.

[DocFrankenstein]

A new body is not gonna make your pics look better if you have crappy optics such as your 28-300.

BTW, The Tamron 28-300 is not a bad lens. It takes so VERY nice pictures... I am VERY happy with it... VERY happy.. My pictures from the INDY 500 were AMAZING but a 2.8 would of been better. it is a macro lens though and it is just AWESOME for macro photos..
I am sure it takes nice pics, but you can't even begin to compare them...

It's easier to construct a "3x" zoom than 10.7x zoom. The L is made by canon, that one is tamron... photodo.com rates one at 4.1 and the other 2.5...

You'll see the difference when you shoot with L :wink:

[Kenski]

A new body is not gonna make your pics look better if you have crappy optics such as your 28-300.

BTW, The Tamron 28-300 is not a bad lens. It takes so VERY nice pictures... I am VERY happy with it... VERY happy.. My pictures from the INDY 500 were AMAZING but a 2.8 would of been better. it is a macro lens though and it is just AWESOME for macro photos..
I am sure it takes nice pics, but you can't even begin to compare them...

It's easier to construct a "3x" zoom than 10.7x zoom. The L is made by canon, that one is tamron... photodo.com rates one at 4.1 and the other 2.5...

You'll see the difference when you shoot with L :wink:

Oh, I'm not trying to compare the tamron to the L glass.. There is NO way you can compare it! :) But the lens is pretty good.

[Danny Boy]

Kenski,

If you are still looking to rent a lens, I know Calumet Photo has rentals. I don't have the details in front of me but I recently got their literature that explains their rental policies so I know you can rent equipment. They are in Bensenville, IL (near O'Hare airport) and downtown Chicago. Here is their website:

http://www.calumetphotographic.com/ctl?PAGE=Controller&ac.ui.pn=home.Home

Hope that helped.

Dan

[Kenski]

thanks...i'll check it out.....

[Olegis]

I am very close to a purchase of the 70-200mm 2.8L and still own the 300D... I just want to make sure that if I shoot SPORTS TYPE EVENTS and bump up the ISO setting that the images will still be crisp...

Since the 300D noise levels are very close, if not similar, to those of 10D - I can speak from experience (I have 10D and 70-200 f/2.8L). The noise on the images is hardly a function of the lens, it's mostly a function of ISO and exposure - under-exposed pictures will show more visible noise. But even ISO 1600 is very acceptable with 10D (and I beleive with 300D also), you can check these galleries to see it for yourself :
http://www.pbase.com/olegis/playandmusic2&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/olegis/street_theatre&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/olegis/rita__live_in_caesaria&page=all

Just run the pictures through a noise-reduction program - I use Noise-Ninja.

[drisley]

HERE (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg) is a 100% crop of an ISO800 shot with the 300D. No noise reduction used at all!
Even my ISO1600 shots look very similar. The trick, as Olegis mentioned, is to make sure your exposures are correct, or even SLIGHTLY over exposed. The worst thing you can do is underexpose a high ISO image.
Then again, even an image that appears slightly noisy at 100% will show no signs of noise when printed, or resized for the web.
We make so much of noise now because we can view the images at 100%. Even though film produces much more noise than today's DSLR's, it was rare that anyone complained about the noise. That was because we never got to see the "100% images" from film unless we worked in the darkroom.

A couple months ago I shot a portrait of some people at ISO1600 because I was going to make in B&W and I wanted some grain. Well, I added even MORE noise in photoshop, and when I printed it, the noise STILL wasn't visible!

And for those who like to view their images at 100% ( :wink: ), there are great noise reduction programs like Olegis mentiond. My favourite also is Noise Ninja, although I rarely use it.

PS. Olegis, those pictures are awesome!