Rekd
05-02-2010, 02:45 PM
I'm getting a new lens, but what? The more research I do the more confused I get. :irked: And I didn't want to hijack Overread's thread that runs along similar lines. :)
I've got a 7D with a kit lens. I've got a Canon EF 70-210mm f/4.0 push/pull with macro. (My wife had it before we got married in '94, it's old but works ok on a DSLR). I've also got an EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.0, old like the above. It's a decent wide angle lens, but kind of slow.
I mostly shoot (and only get paid for) motorsports but do lots of other shooting, too. Recently I've done 3 FMX shows at night or indoors and I can't get beyond "meh" results. The last was indoors with lots of pyrotechnics (smoke and random flashes) at Nuclear Cowboyz.
This is straight out of the camera except the crop/border. The haze and backlighting kind of saves the picture, but it still lacks greatly...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2770/4487873147_acbd3d3e44.jpg
I know I can get better picts (and have, but not consistently) and I'd like to think it's because of the lenses and not me.
The :whip: seems to agree and said I can spend a couple grand to find out. So...
I'm not going to go prime because I want more versatility. For now.
I liked the looks of the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM, but when I saw the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM I balked.
I'd like to see what I can do with motorsports at night with f/2.8. But I'd like to get a bit closer than 200mm for things like BIF at my house or on Scouting hikes or air shows or at the track or or...
How much does 200mm @ f/2.8 help considering I have an (albeit old) EF 210mm @ f/4.0?
If I just spend the extra to get the 70-200 and get the 1.4x multiplier I still end up at like 280mm @ f/4.0ish but have IS and L along with much better night-time performance. I'm way over budget but I can pull it off.
I'm sure I'll have more fun with the 100-400, but I won't be much better off at night than what I've got now. Or will I?
Ack! :-x
I've got a 7D with a kit lens. I've got a Canon EF 70-210mm f/4.0 push/pull with macro. (My wife had it before we got married in '94, it's old but works ok on a DSLR). I've also got an EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.0, old like the above. It's a decent wide angle lens, but kind of slow.
I mostly shoot (and only get paid for) motorsports but do lots of other shooting, too. Recently I've done 3 FMX shows at night or indoors and I can't get beyond "meh" results. The last was indoors with lots of pyrotechnics (smoke and random flashes) at Nuclear Cowboyz.
This is straight out of the camera except the crop/border. The haze and backlighting kind of saves the picture, but it still lacks greatly...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2770/4487873147_acbd3d3e44.jpg
I know I can get better picts (and have, but not consistently) and I'd like to think it's because of the lenses and not me.
The :whip: seems to agree and said I can spend a couple grand to find out. So...
I'm not going to go prime because I want more versatility. For now.
I liked the looks of the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM, but when I saw the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM I balked.
I'd like to see what I can do with motorsports at night with f/2.8. But I'd like to get a bit closer than 200mm for things like BIF at my house or on Scouting hikes or air shows or at the track or or...
How much does 200mm @ f/2.8 help considering I have an (albeit old) EF 210mm @ f/4.0?
If I just spend the extra to get the 70-200 and get the 1.4x multiplier I still end up at like 280mm @ f/4.0ish but have IS and L along with much better night-time performance. I'm way over budget but I can pull it off.
I'm sure I'll have more fun with the 100-400, but I won't be much better off at night than what I've got now. Or will I?
Ack! :-x