Automotive Question::

I will be purchasing a new lens very shortly (within the next few days). I shoot mainly automotive and dabble at other forms from time to time (portrait, sports).

The two lenses I am stuck between are the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 70-200 f/4 L.

Most of my shots are full body car shots, but I like to mix it up and give it an "artsy" form to them. I believe an Ultra Wide lens, such as the 10-20, would yield excellent results for what i do on an almost regular basis.

Now I guess the question is, should i spend the extra hundred dollars or so just to have an L lens and have additional zoom on the occasional times I need it? How does the 70-200 perform on sitting still car shots?

I feel that i should go ahead and purchase the 10-20 as it would be more practical for my needs, but will anyone confirm this?

Thanks alot,
Jake

I have the 70-200 and the 17-40 and i use the 17-40 more.

Add the 17-40 to that list, because since i got this thing it hasnt come off of my camera. You would be happy you replaced your kit lens.

InfraRed wrote in post #2522500
I will be purchasing a new lens very shortly .......The two lenses I am stuck between are the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 70-200 f/4 L.

? But they are two completely different lenses?

The 70-200 has awesome optics. It is noted elsewhere as a gem of a lens at almost any money and outstanding value considering its modest cost.

However, it doesn't matter how good the lens is, it isn't going to take great pictures unless it is on your camera.

Spend some time going through your pictures with Canon File Viewer and see what focal length you are using the most currently - you might be surprised.

Only you can tell what will give you the most use though 10-20 is unlikely to get much use in sports or portrait. Interiors aside you can generally step back from a car to get it into into the frame but the only way you can bring sports closer is with a longer lens.

I'd probably go for the 70-200 but then, prior to my 24-105 f4L IS, my 17-35 was the lens most frequently found on the camera.

Ya pays your money, ya takes ya choice - but I would go for and L over a Sigma every time.

for my car shots I use 10-22 and 24-105 L mostly with some 30mm f1.4 and 100-400 just to blow the background out (70-200 f2.8 does the same job) the 10-22 is good for some shots but you are generally limited to what you can do with it. you already have the 18-55 which you would used stopped down any way. I would invest in the 70-200 TBH

thanks for the feedback, looks like i have some stuff to think about.

why not buy both at the same time.. like me I bought the canon 10-22 & 70-200 f/2.8L since I needed both of them. Your best bet is to save untill you figure out what you really need. I love UWA shots so i wanted to 10-22 more, but I love how the 70-200 works awesome with track events and blur out the background with the 2.8

I'm using the 28-70 f/2.8 as a "walk around" lens now & it's not quite wide enough in crowded conditions, but the kit lens worked well before that. The 10-20 might be overkill, & not very good for profile shots.
Archive best shots from the "kit lens"-EF-S 18-55.

The Canon 70-200 f/4 L is a great piece of glass for $500 used, & sooner or later, you'll buy one. You could use it for a few years & sell it for what you paid if you upgraded to the f/2.8. Good for action shots, but not very good for "full body shots" in crowded conditions though.
Radio Controlled Boats

So I'd say, use the kit lens, buy the 70-200, & put the 10-20 on your christmas list.

I use the 17-40 and 70-200 for static shots. some of my best static shots were with the 70-200. Like said above you will probably end up with one anyway. That would be my choice.

well i'll start looking for a nice used 70-200. thanks a lot guys

Seen this area?
Classifieds: Sell

thanks photosguy, i did see that forum and was browsing it earlier

i ended up purchasing one off of a guy at FredMiranda.com