looking to get first "L" lens

[rebel61021]

I am looking at getting my first "L" lens I am looking at 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens from B&H is this a good? lens or should I wait till I can save another $500 so that I can get 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens. I will be shooting mostly sporting events with it outdoor Football and indoor wrestling I have a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM it it is to low of light. I guess I am just lusting for an L lens after reading what everyone says about them. B&H has that 70-200 f4 for about $570. and I could do that right now. just don't want to say I wish I would have saved a little longer and got the 70-200 f2.8...

[Mogwyth]

Personaly I would say get your hands on both of the Canons and do some test shots and process/print as you would prints from the Sigma,( I tested all 3) you may find like I did that for your use neither offers much of an advantage over the Sigma. MHO, others will disagree and say get the "L" but you need to get what's best for you.

[Naytwan]

I have the 70-200 F4 and its a great piece of glass. I've only used it coupled with close-up filters for macro work, but its done a hell of a job there. But like the poster before me, go with what works for you. I got the L because the 75-300 USM just didn't cut it for me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/naytwan/Water/87818ab9.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/naytwan/Macro/e65de84f.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

Rebel,

If you have allready have the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and it is not fast enough for low light work ,. then "L" or not,.. switching to Canon will not help. Especially going from f/2.8 to the Canon f/4 where you will lose a stop.

Unless I misunderstood your post,. it seems to me that you are lookig for a faster lens,. all I can recomend is the 135mm f/2L at about $850.00 .. other than that,. the ony way you'll get a faster lens at that telephoto length is the suprememly pricey (over $3K) and hard to find 200mm f/1.8.

[rebel61021]

not really looking for speed, I just want an "L". I am one of these guys that when I jump into something I like to really Jump into it. I will use the "L" for many things other that sports that is just the most important right now this summer I will be doing carshows and I really like shooting outdoors wether it be people or animals. I guess my real question was wether the optics in the f4 were as good as the f2.8? because the last thing I need is another lens that I wish I did not buy.

[Mogwyth]

If you can afford and want it then that's up to you, but are you realy going to see the small increase in image quailty across some of the range/apertures with the Canons over your Sigma.

IMHO it would be better to stick with the Sigma and spend the money on something different.

[Olegis]

I wouldn't buy the f/4 version if I were you as you won't gain almost anything with it over the lens you have right now. Instead I would go for the Canon f/2.8L IS version - it would be better than your Sigma optically and will have IS. Then you can sell the Sigma.

[HKFEVER]

Rebel,

If you have allready have the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and it is not fast enough for low light work ,. then "L" or not,.. switching to Canon will not help. Especially going from f/2.8 to the Canon f/4 where you will lose a stop.

Unless I misunderstood your post,. it seems to me that you are lookig for a faster lens,. all I can recomend is the 135mm f/2L at about $850.00 .. other than that,. the ony way you'll get a faster lens at that telephoto length is the suprememly pricey (over $3K) and hard to find 200mm f/1.8.

I tried Sigma, it is slow on 300D and just OK on 1DMKII. I rather get 100-400 instead of Sigma.

Try 135mm f/2.0L sharpest & fast AF len you can get in L (may be). Also work with 1.4XII.

[HKFEVER]

I wouldn't buy the f/4 version if I were you as you won't gain almost anything with it over the lens you have right now. Instead I would go for the Canon f/2.8L IS version - it would be better than your Sigma optically and will have IS. Then you can sell the Sigma.

I second this, I bought the 70-200 f/2.8L IS after try the Sigma on my previous IDMKII and on my friend's 300D.

Or try 24-70 f/2.8L, this is a very good walk around L len.

[CyberDyneSystems]

HK,. when I say "slow"" or "fast" lens I am referring to aperure,. but yes Autofocus is another part of the equation.

Rebel,. I agree with Olegis here exactly,. although the 70-200mm f/4 is optically pretty much as good as the much pricier f/2.8 IS,.. I would not sacrifice the f/2.8 just to switch to an "L" lens,. in fact I did exactly what Olegis recomends,. I shot with the excellent bargain Sigma 70-200mm EX f/2.8 for a little over a year before upgrading to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS

HK raises another good,. and this has been a recurring mantra fro me on these forums for years,...

BEFORE you look to ugrade an existing lens/focal range (especially when the lens you have is allready such a good one) look to expand your collection instead. Do you have a super tele yet? Do you have an ultra wide yet? etc. etc. etc.

[HKFEVER]

HK,. when I say "slow"" or "fast" lens I am referring to aperure,. but yes Autofocus is another part of the equation.



Fast for me is both Aperure and the speed of AF.
My 85mm f/1.2L is fast at Aperure :lol: but slow at AF speed:confused: .

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm with oleg and cds...

If you're shooting sports and have the money, get 70-200 IS L

Autofocus is WAY faster and it's noticeably sharper than sigma at 2.8

From my limited experience, I think all 70-200 L outresolve the 300D sensor... so you wouldn't gain anything with f/4 L

Cheers.

[HKFEVER]

I'm with oleg and cds...

If you're shooting sports and have the money, get 70-200 IS L

Autofocus is WAY faster and it's noticeably sharper than sigma at 2.8

From my limited experience, I think all 70-200 L outresolve the 300D sensor... so you wouldn't gain anything with f/4 L

Cheers.

I second this one too.

[Persian-Rice]

I just switched from the F/4 to the F/2.8, and in terms of sports especially during low light, there is a HUGE differnce.

Shooting with the 1D and the new 2.8 at an arena, about 90% of my shots were "keepers". When i shot witht he F/4 I had far too much motion blur.

As said, if you have the cash, then get the IS. For me, I would never buy the IS just because I can't get my head around the price:upgrade value thing. I don't care if NASA developed the IS, $500 is too much for it IMO. You alsways have the 100-400 with IS for $400 less.........

[Andy_T]

I'm not really familiar with indoor wrestling (are you talking about the sports or the showbiz variety?), but if focal length is not a big issue, the 85/1.8 might be a good addition to your lens bag that is not as pricey as the incredible 135/2.0 until you have saved enough to get the 70-200/2.8 IS instead of the Sigma.

For outdoor football both would maybe be a bit short (the 85 definitely), so if it takes place during the day, why not look at the 100-400 in addition to your Sigma instead of the 70-200/2.8 IS as a replacement for it?

Best regards,
Andy

[rebel61021]

would like to thank everybody for the info I think I am going to save a little longer and get the f2.8 with IS.

[HKFEVER]

would like to thank everybody for the info I think I am going to save a little longer and get the f2.8 with IS.

Excellent decision.:lol:

[ijohnson]

I thought about the 4 vs. 2.8 for a while. I don't need the IS because I shoot candid children an awful lot and until they make a IS that tracks a subject it wont be much use.

I took the 2.8 non-IS because It seemed perfect for me, and it is. I love it to death. I'd sleep with it if I wasn't afraid that it would go flying off the bed at some point.

Skip the 4, especially since you have the 2.8 Sigma. Unless that autofocus is killing you, and believe me I have had some experience with Sigma lenses that I believe would be unusable because they are so slow at autofocusing. For the application you are talking about, I really believe that f4 would kill you in a totally different way.

Many people say that the 2.8 is too heavy so that could be a factor too. I don't think it is any heavier than your Sigma though. I think that f4 is too small. You can decide what that says about me.

[lmelendez]

From my limited experience, I think all 70-200 L outresolve the 300D sensor... so you wouldn't gain anything with f/4 L

I don't mean to hijack the thread but what does it mean to "outresolve" the 300D sensor?

Thanks!

Leo.

[Jon]

I don't mean to hijack the thread but what does it mean to "outresolve" the 300D sensor?

Thanks!

Leo.

If the lens is capable of capturing finer detail than the sensor/film it's being used with, it's said to "out-resolve" the sensor. The limiting factor in your image quality will be the sensor, not the lens (leaving out such minor details as technique and proper exposure).

[ijohnson]

If the lens is capable of capturing finer detail than the sensor/film it's being used with, it's said to "out-resolve" the sensor. The limiting factor in your image quality will be the sensor, not the lens (leaving out such minor details as technique and proper exposure).

Any talk of outresolving a sensor is greatly overrated. If you are about to spend $1000 on a camera lens, I highly doubt that you will throw the lens away when you get a new camera. As quickly as sensors are improving, excellent glass should be very important and even though it may not matter now on a 300d, it will surely matter when you buy your next dslr, or if you have a 35mm that you shoot with as well.