Lens question for canon 40d

pdxmonkeyboy · Mon May 11, 09 1:32 pm **Lens question for canon 40d**

So it has become painfully obvious I need a decent zoom lens and I can't afford the 2.8L series zoom lens. So which of these do you think...

canon 70-200 f4 L series (non IS)

or the

SIGMA 70-200MM F2.8 DG EX APO HSM

thanks!

Blue · Since 03 Jul 2007 469 Posts I used to be Obsessed

Naw. Take your photos in style:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800622963-USE/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html

An L glass makes a difference in high resolution cameras.

Anyhow, you should consider saving up for 70/200 2.8L IS. Expensive, but well worth it.

You might lookup some comparison data here.

Mark · Mon May 11, 09 2:25 pm

Agreed. WAIT. You should spend the money on your lens. You will take it from body to body. Don't skimp.

stringer · Since 31 Jul 2007 694 Posts Chucktown Flying Tomato

dude, I'd go for the canon.
If you're mostly shooting outdoors you probably won't NEED the extra stop.
It might come in handy every now and then.
The nice thing about the canon is that if you decide later on that you're willing to shell out for the faster version, it will still hold most of its value. You may only end up $50-100 down.
Maybe supplement with a nifty fifty if you really need something for low light.
Plus the canon 70-200 f4 is way lighter than the sigma or faster canons.

pdxmonkeyboy · Mon May 11, 09 3:01 pm

pdxmonkeyboy · Mon May 11, 09 3:08 pm

maybe I'll just get the non L series lens. 70-300 and IS for around $600. That white lens body does say "oh yeah, this is the mack daddy lens"

but it also says, hey you..steal this M@#&er F^cker and sell it on craigs list.

Nak · Mon May 11, 09 11:03 pm

Brian, think about the Canon 70-210 F4 lens. You should be able to pick one up for $100 - $150 on Ebay. Once you save up for a 70-200 F4L IS you can sell the 70-210 for about what you paid for it. I've got one that works pretty decent with my 40D.

Kataku2k3 · Since 14 Aug 2005 3754 Posts PDX-LA Videographer

Squirrel dudes are rad! I just finished my 2nd Gen house for them a few weeks back.

Link

OUT with the OLD...

IN with the NEW!

Sorry for the hijack, I just really, really like squirrels! Very Happy

pdxmonkeyboy · Tue May 12, 09 6:39 am

Found a local guy with a 70-200 2.8L for $800. Seems like a good deal if it is in good shape, might as well spend the extra $200 and get the 2.8.

Although IS would be nice, from everything I read its not necessary for sports and it adds another $500 to the cost. in reality though, I never used an IS lens ..any thoughts anyone?

pkh · Since 27 Feb 2005 6549 Posts Couve / Hood Honored Founder

Adam, time to get a job? Wink

Bokeh · Since 07 Feb 2008 104 Posts Vancouver, WA Stoked

IS is a great feature - especially if you can't/don't use a tripod. Is it worth the price? I'd say, yes assuming you're shooting moving objects and not squirrel houses Wink

Blue · Since 03 Jul 2007 469 Posts I used to be Obsessed

What Bokeh said. IS allows you to take the camera off the tripod and still get very sharp pictures.

If you intend to take pictures for a computer screen, then getting inexpensive lens makes more sense. You will never see the difference lens makes downsizing 3888 x 2592 to 800 x 600. Than again, somehow I think you already know that Wink

pdxmonkeyboy · Tue May 12, 09 8:30 am

I was thinking at the shutter speeds that 2.8 would allow, I wouldn't really need to use the tripod for most action shots. I thought the IS was better for taking pictures of stationary objects...

I hear you about the computer screen but you can certainly tell the difference between an awesome lens and an average one. Razor sharp images just jump out at you. I figure if I am going to take the time to spool off a couple hundred pictures, they might as well look great.

Blue · Since 03 Jul 2007 469 Posts I used to be Obsessed

IS takes care of camera shake, allowing for handheld photography under conditions that would be prohibitive without it like low light conditions or low ISO setting (generally, if you are very concerned about quality, you want to keep your ISO as low as possible). IS also compensates for internal camera vibrations, helping with sharpness even when camera is on a tripod.

I guess the decision mostly depends on applications. Pro photogs tend to have lenses dedicated to the application they want to use the lens for. You don’t need 2.8 if you intend to use the lens outdoors for shooting sports. You most likely can get away without IS, although the number of usable shots will decrease. You also don’t need high quality lens if you intend to show your photos on the web only. Amazing sharpness can be achieved during image reduction with the help of the software. This will not work for large prints, of course.

For an amateur, such as myself, I want the lens to be as versatile as possible. I need 2.8 for portrait photography and low level light candid photography of my kids. IS is useful there as well. Also, 1.4 extender with 70-200/2.8 is as sharp as lens itself, and converts your zoom to roughly 100-300/4.

And you never know, when your wife will say " I want this picture at 16x20". Chances are this is not going to be a picture of some kiting dude, when she says that. Choices, choices Smile

Kataku2k3 · Since 14 Aug 2005 3754 Posts PDX-LA Videographer

Are you going to try a water bag, Brian?

pdxmonkeyboy · Tue May 12, 09 11:16 am

probably not. I'll take pictures from the beach.

EdG · Since 19 Dec 2005 425 Posts Just a Kook that's Obsessed