Lense advice

[John M]

Hello to all. I've had my camera for two months, but previously had the dRebel for almost a year. I am seeking advice from the members of this forum.

My signature shows the lenses that I have right now, but I am thinking of upgrading and/or replacing an item or two. I've owned the 70-200L for about six months now and I'm very pleased with it. I just purchased the 28-80L last week and so far it looks great also. Specifically, I have a few questions about the 200...

I took some excellent pics at the NASCAR race in Texas back in April with the 200, along with a Bower 2x TC, on the dRebel. I am going to the Bristol night race in late August and I'll be using the 20d for it. My question for the forum is this:

Will the 200/F4 work OK for the night race? The track and the cars will be well lit, obviously, but what about taking pictures? I guess my major concern here is that for the one-time opportunity of being at the races, I will not have the correct lense. And no way to purchase the right one.

I've considered this for a while now, and here are my ideas. Purchase a 70-200/2.8L and an EF2X II TC and try to sell the 200/4L, or maybe get a 100-400/4L and forgo the extender. But that still leaves me with an F4 lense that might not be the best for nighttime pics. Also, I plan on taking some hockey pictures once our season starts in October. Would the 200/2.8 be better suited for these indoor photos? I've budgeted about $1300 for lenses, that would get me a 70-200/2.8L and the 2x TC. Or about the same for the 100-400L.

Thoughts anyone?

John M

[gasrocks]

My advice, get the Canon 300/4 L IS and the Canon 1.4x (a used type I, or new type II.)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

The 70-200mm f/2.8L Is honestly a waste of cash in my opinion. It'd be a lot more sensable and save you a lot of money to go with the 200mm f/2.8L prime. Which, is a lot better than your f/4 for indoors. I've tried using my 70-200 f/4L for indoor soccer and it was hell.

Although, using a 2x t-con, usually is a very bad idea and produces poor results. If your going to be shooting 400mm so much, the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens might be a good idea, but it will not be good at all for night shots. Nothing at 400mm will since they all have slow apetures. (Within your price range. I'm guessing the 400mm f/2.8L IS is out of reason) You also couldn't add a t-con to that anyway, AF wouldn't work.

Right now I'm thinking the 300mm f/4L IS lens would be a good idea. It's a great lens, fits well into your budget, has an f/4 apeture that you can use, and throw on a 1.4x t-con and you'll have 420mm with a f/5.6 and IS. Or, you could just go 400mm f/5.6L if you think it's all you'll use. Still slow lenses....

I don't think anything within your budget is going to make a good low light lens with the reach you need. 400mm is quite a stretch!

For the indoor hockey though, the 135mm f/2.0L might not be such a bad idea.

Sorry, hopefully someone else can be more helpful than I have been.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Haha, gasrocks, you beat me to it! Suggested the same as me.:p

[Mohawk]

I have no idea where you will be situated at the race shooting wise. And yes, the 70-200 f4 might not be fast or long enough. One thing you can do is bump your ISO and pray for a steady hand. I do not think you will be able to use a monopod, which would be handy, as it will probably be looked upon as a potential weapon.

Check a local camera shop and see about renting a long and fast lens. And check with the track regarding photo gear, they might just have a camera/lens restriction during race day. No lenses over 6 inches, or something like that.

Mike

[John M]

Thanks for the replys.

As far as where I'm sitting, I will be up in the stands. With about 160,000 other screaming people. I haven't read about any restrictions as far as lense sizes, but I will check on it.

As far as positively having to go with 400mm, I didn't mean to imply that I just have that much. At Texas, the convertor helped to bring in the action on the back stretch. But that is a huge mile and a half track, and the back stretch was at least one-quarter mile away from me, from where I was sitting.

Bristol is a very small one-half mile track. The action should be a WHOLE lot closer to the seats. 200mm may be enough, or more that enough, for me. I'm just a fan that wants to make sure that I get good pictures at the track. I might not ever make it back to a race at Bristol and I don't to come away with pictures that I don't like.

All else being said, would a 2.8 lense be better suited to for low light photos? I will be using whatever lense for both indoor and outdoor pics. We also have a very good air show in Midland from the Commemorative Air Force that I got some excellent shots from last year.

My thinking is that a 2.8 might be a better fit for both indoor and outdoor situations.

John M

[Mohawk]

John,

I have both of the 70-200mm's, f4L and 2.8L IS. The 2.8 has been glued to my 1DMKII for weeks. I was shooting some action shots of the grand kids yesterday in the hot tub and some of the wifes flowers. The bokeh with the 2.8 is very very nice, and the IS is the icing on the cake. I have not used the f4 version since getting the 2.8. Once you get the 2.8L IS, you will never know how you lived so long without it. It is just an incredible lens and worth the money.

Mike

[John M]

Mohawk: Thanks for the input. The 2.8L IS is out of my price range (for now). But it sounds like the non-IS would be a good choice.

Of course, I now have two conflicting points, one for the 70-200 F2.8L and one against it.

I was kinda hoping for some more opinions about this, but thanks to all that replied, and viewed.

John M