PDA

View Full Version : O/T Canon Camera Lens



sjrixon
28th December 2006, 10:08
Hey all.. Merry Christmas!

I am after some advice.. I have a canon 350D and a 90-300mm lens which i use most of the time at Rockingham.

I would like a new lens and in an ideal world I 'think' I would like the 100-400. But it's a bit more money than I want to pay for my little hobby! I also feel it's been around a long time and as soon as I by it Canon will release a new one!!

What are people thoughts? What do you use? I guess most people have a 10 or 20 'D'. So for someone who just likes to play what would be a good way to go?

Looking forward to you thoughts.. And the racing... How I hate the 'no racing' Winter..

Scott

hicksy
28th December 2006, 19:23
I have the same camera and a 70-300mm lens but if money were no object I would probably have the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8. I believe this is the lens that Richard (Sportsfotos) uses. I think that Witty also uses the 100-400 lens. If money is an issue, Sigma seems to get very good reviews for their equavalent models, and maybe invest in a 2 x converter.

Rob

Reynard
28th December 2006, 19:26
I'd say go for the 100-400 if it is what you really want. Of it's type, there is no better and IMHO worth every penny. I've had mine since the beginning of 2003 when I was still shooting with film and it has been with me through the transition into digital. Most of my action photos are taken with it. Four seasons of use and I am still as happy with it as the day I bought it - if it were to go belly up, I'd deffo go out and buy another of the same.

The lens is hand-holdable, built like a tank and very instinctive to use. For available light sports shooting it more than holds its own against glass that is far more expensive. Some folk don't like it and say it sucks up dust but I can't say I have problems in that respect.

I still use a 10D btw, it is my back-up and pottering around body to my big brick i.e. my 1D Mk2. The 100-400 works well with both.

I'd advise against the 70-200 if you are shooting from the stands - it just isn't long enough although it is a super lens in its own right. It isn't my taste though as I prefer the extra length and the push-pull of the 100-400. Also, be wary of 2x converters - they aren't always as good as they are made up to be, especially with slower lenses...

Any questions, feel free to ask.

sjrixon
29th December 2006, 10:30
Thanks for that.. I have a 90-300 lens at the moment.. It's 'ok'. I didn't pay much for it and it's done the job..

Sigma must just be an option.

http://www.digitalrev.com/en/product_details.php?item_id=389

500mm for under 400! I think that's more the money I want to pay!

sjrixon
29th December 2006, 10:49
Or

http://www.digitalrev.com/en/product_details.php?item_id=57&category_id=145

SteveA
29th December 2006, 11:06
Hey all.. Merry Christmas!

I am after some advice.. I have a canon 350D and a 90-300mm lens which i use most of the time at Rockingham.

I would like a new lens and in an ideal world I 'think' I would like the 100-400. But it's a bit more money than I want to pay for my little hobby! I also feel it's been around a long time and as soon as I by it Canon will release a new one!!

What are people thoughts? What do you use? I guess most people have a 10 or 20 'D'. So for someone who just likes to play what would be a good way to go?


I use an expensive lens on a 350D. The 350 (and 400)D's are less rugged than the xxD's and lack some of the performance on the mechanical side, but the CCD is just as good. Mine's nearly twice "around the clock" now and hasn't had any problems with jamming mirrors or shutter problems.

The lens I went for was the Canon EF 28-300 L with Ultrasonic autofocus and image stabilizer. Its been fine for most events, although sometimes I wish it would go to 400mm! £1,500 lens on a £500 camera seemed a bit insane at the time, but its proved to have been a good match.

sjrixon
29th December 2006, 12:04
Or this one!

http://www.digitalrev.com/en/product_details.php?item_id=904&category_id=

I'll stop now :)

Richard C
29th December 2006, 16:58
Hicksy is correct is saying I use the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 but I also use the 300 2.8 and both the 1.4 and 2X converters, sometimes both together (manual focus only).

I have had a Sigma zoom in the past and I have to say I was not that happy with it, slow to focus and very soft (it was the 70-200 2.8), but I have never used any of the longer ones.

I would agree with Witty (Reynard) and would go for the Canon 100-400.

Richard.

Reynard
29th December 2006, 23:17
To be honest, you will never regret buying the best glass. The results speak for themselves and you aren't left with that "if only" feeling.

The long Sigma zooms won't be much of an improvement over what you've got now, if at all in terms of image quality. I have some experience of both the 170-500 and the 50-500 and they are pretty klutzy to use and as Richard says, are slow to focus. They also have a smaller maximum aperture, particularly at the long end, so you will have to work at higher ISO settings and will get more noise in your photos for a given level of light. It also means that a monopod is pretty well much a must if you want to avoid camera shake.

With the Canon, you get image stabilising, which is really the best thing since sliced bread - it makes such a difference.

Bottom line is though, you're the one who needs to be happy with your eventual choice. Yes it is a lot of money to drop on a lens, but IMHO it is worth it if you are going to be able to get the shots that you want.

Chigley
30th December 2006, 01:40
Can anyone tell me if I turn left or right for Argos? ;)

:rotflmao:

Dave17
30th December 2006, 10:15
Can anyone tell me if I turn left or right for Argos? ;)

:rotflmao:

Depends which side of the street your on.

Sticker Rub
30th December 2006, 16:40
Depends which side of the street your on.
And whether you're trying to get there or avoid it :)

Dave17
30th December 2006, 19:43
Or if there is actually one in your town?
.
.
.
.
Ah well, thats another sensibly thread gone west!!! hijacked by orange!

sjrixon
30th December 2006, 21:00
Where did that go???????

Looks like I am saving for a canon 100-400...

Rockingham better be good this year!

Dave17
31st December 2006, 10:44
Rockingham better be good this year!

It will be!

Do Argos sell the canon 100-400 then?

sjrixon
31st December 2006, 11:59
It will be!

Do Argos sell the canon 100-400 then?

I wasn't going to Argos....

Dave17
31st December 2006, 21:08
I wasn't going to Argos....

Ahhh, Chigley may have stole a march on you there. Argos are always cheaper than other High St stores.

Jeff Carter
2nd January 2007, 11:38
Looks like I am saving for a canon 100-400...



When I started working as a professional I bought a lot of my lenses second hand and replaced them as I went along.

If you buy from a reputable dealer you can get some quite good bargains and afford a much better lens. Check in the classifieds at the back of Amateur Photographer magazine, this gives a lot of good dealers which offer guarantees on all of their second hand lenses and cameras.

As Reynard said try and get the fastest lens you can afford, some of the longs zoom lens have a slower aperture at the long end that will prove frustrating once the light starts to drop.

On the camera front - Never buy an expensive body and stick a cheap lens on it, you'll always be disappointed. A budget to semi pro camera with a good lens will ALWAYS give better results than a top of the range pro camera with a cheap lens - it's the glass that matters, not the box. A friend of mine once said that buying a pro camera with a cheap lens is like buying a Rolls Royce and putting diesel in it!

Good luck with whatever lens you end up buying.

Jeff



Jeff

Reynard
2nd January 2007, 23:01
You couldn't be righter, Jeff. A lot of the budget / mid-range bodies are pretty good in their own right and most definitely not to be sniffed at. Goodness, my 10D produces some cracking stuff. And you're right about cheap glass too - and digital is far less forgiving of cheap lenses than film.

Actually, the majority of my glass has been bought secondhand, which means that the old budget stretches significantly further. Park Cameras in Sussex are a good place to start (they do mail order) and I believe Fixations in Vauxhall also do used kit. If you do go down this route, buy through a reputable dealer because you will get a warranty with your purchase.

If you're unsure as to whether you can live with the 100-400, then why not hire one for a weekend? It may be money well spent, because if you find you don't like it, you can change tack and get something else instead.

corbygal
3rd January 2007, 21:03
You couldn't be righter, Jeff. A lot of the budget / mid-range bodies are pretty good in their own right and most definitely not to be sniffed at. Goodness, my 10D produces some cracking stuff. And you're right about cheap glass too - and digital is far less forgiving of cheap lenses than film.

Actually, the majority of my glass has been bought secondhand, which means that the old budget stretches significantly further. Park Cameras in Sussex are a good place to start (they do mail order) and I believe Fixations in Vauxhall also do used kit. If you do go down this route, buy through a reputable dealer because you will get a warranty with your purchase.

If you're unsure as to whether you can live with the 100-400, then why not hire one for a weekend? It may be money well spent, because if you find you don't like it, you can change tack and get something else instead.

How much are they to hire and where do you get em from? I'm trying to get a job so I can actually buy a decent camera for Rockingham, but if I can't afford one by then I might rent one if I can. I only want one of the cheapest Canon EOS and a lense up to 300mm for starters.

Also has that Park Cameras got a website and can you post it please? I'm so desperate for a cheap camera and lense I'm selling most of my DVDs!

Reynard
3rd January 2007, 22:51
I only know of Fixation (http://www.fixationuk.com) who do hire - not sure about anywhere outside of London. You'll have to ask around I suppose. Rental prices depend on what - I would imagine around £50 for a weekend for something like a 28-300L.

The Park website is http://www.parkcameras.co.uk

If budget is tight Sharon, go used. You can always upgrade later and / or keep as backup. There should be a few 300D and 10D bodies available at a reasonable price

hicksy
4th January 2007, 00:53
Calumet also do hire. Here is there tariff for an idea

http://webres.calumetphoto.com/webres/pdfs/ukrentalguide.pdf

Blue Infinity
4th January 2007, 01:09
How much are they to hire and where do you get em from? I'm trying to get a job so I can actually buy a decent camera for Rockingham, but if I can't afford one by then I might rent one if I can. I only want one of the cheapest Canon EOS and a lense up to 300mm for starters.

Also has that Park Cameras got a website and can you post it please? I'm so desperate for a cheap camera and lense I'm selling most of my DVDs!

Hi

If you're after a good 2nd hand EOS I will probably be selling one of my 10D's in the next few weeks to upgrade (have a couple of lenses too). If you're interested PM me.

Linda

LessThanSte
4th January 2007, 14:00
All this talk of cameras!

I plan on getting an SLR camera for my birthday, though havnt yet decided which. Seems most of them come either body only or for an extra 200 quid, with a lens aswell.

I have found out my dad's old SLR film camera, he has a 35-200mm Sigma lens on it. Would that be any good on a new SLR camera, and what is that like in comparison to some of the other lens mentioned above?

Reynard
4th January 2007, 18:09
I would strongly recommend getting a kit if you are starting completely from scratch - although I can only speak for Canon,in which case that would be the body plus the 18-55 lens. The longer lens with IS isn't quite so good and it does add somewhat to the price. Don't forget to budget for a bag (make sure it is big enough and then some), flash cards, card reader and other sundries as well. If you can stretch to an external flash then do so.

If it is an old Sigma lens, it probably won't be compatible with a new camera - I know that's the case for Canon bodies, not sure about the other makes. Some of the less old Sigma lenses can be sent back to be re-chipped, but anything more than four or five years old, Sigma won't re-chip. This is because they reverse engineer their software to get their lenses to work with OEM bodies.

Digital shows up old / cheap glass - it is far less forgiving than film as a medium. Having said that, I have a stonking Yashica 50 1.4 manual lens that I sometimes put on my DSLR via an adaptor.

corbygal
5th January 2007, 19:09
Hi

If you're after a good 2nd hand EOS I will probably be selling one of my 10D's in the next few weeks to upgrade (have a couple of lenses too). If you're interested PM me.

Linda


Sounds tempting... I'll have my student loan then! lol. I'll consider it, just need to work out a budget for this semester... there goes me drinking lol.

SteveA
6th January 2007, 15:01
You might also consider the official Canon refurb outlet on ebay. Refurbished 350D's are on there for £210 and come with a full one year waranty.

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Canon-Outlet

corbygal
6th January 2007, 18:01
I don't trust ebay when spending this amount of money, but thanks.

SteveA
6th January 2007, 18:10
Its an official outlet run by Digital River. You will pay through their own secure payment system, not through eBay.