I am trying to decide on a lense for my 10D, and the primary question is: what would be the best choice for handheld shooting, (at, for example, rodeos, horse events, and that sort of thing). I was thinking the 75-300 IS USM, but can find no definitive answers on whether this would actually be the best choice. Some of you have quite a variety of lenses and I would imagine, some experience with them, so in my mind, you guys/girls/ngs are the best resource.
I've shot a few outdoor sports events with my non-IS 75-300. It depends very much if the events will likely be outdoors or indoors.
If the events will likely be indoors, unless there's fantastic lighting, a 75-300 won't be much use. You'll want, at most, an F2.8 lens. If you want to shoot outdoors in reasonably conditions, a 75-300 would be a good choice.
I considered something like this, but am really looking for more of a wider range, "walking around" kind of lense. I was also looking at the 28-135, but don't think it would give me the telezoom capability that I am looking for.
Mostly I am thinking about outdoor shooting for this lense. Price range? Under $1000.00 I think.
If you don't need more than 200mm, then by far the best tool (at a price!) is the 70-200 2.8L. The IS version is about $1650 though. The non-IS version is just over $1100.
Upside: The best 70-200 telezooms available
Downside: They do attract attention, and the IS version is pretty pricey.
For your intended use, IS may be of only limited benifit, since you need to keep your shutter speed up anyhow. If you are shooting indoors and the venue is well-lit, f/2.8 should be OK, however if lighting is marginal, you may wind up lacking on exposure even at ISO1600 and f/2.8.
For outdoor shooting, f/2.8 should be more than adequate, f/4 should work acceptably even on overcast days.
An alternative to the Canon 70-200 is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which sells for $739 or so. here is a thread with some good pics from the Sigma lens, actually with a 2.0x converter.
If you don't need more than 200mm, then by far the best tool (at a price!) is the 70-200 2.8L. The IS version is about $1650 though. The non-IS version is just over $1100.
Upside: The best 70-200 telezooms available
Downside: They do attract attention, and the IS version is pretty pricey.
For your intended use, IS may be of only limited benifit, since you need to keep your shutter speed up anyhow. If you are shooting indoors and the venue is well-lit, f/2.8 should be OK, however if lighting is marginal, you may wind up lacking on exposure even at ISO1600 and f/2.8.
For outdoor shooting, f/2.8 should be more than adequate, f/4 should work acceptably even on overcast days.
An alternative to the Canon 70-200 is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which sells for $739 or so. here is a thread with some good pics from the Sigma lens, actually with a 2.0x converter.
Thanks for the info - the photos from that one look great. I'm going to the camera place near here on Monday to try some lenses out. My husband reminds me that I really need to take the weight of the lense into consideration since I plan on carrying it around a lot. He thinks the best thing would be to go to the camera place and try them out. Fortunately, the camera shop here carries a fairly large stock, and he does let you shoot with them, and compare the shots at home before you buy. Thanks so much for the input.
I was kind of toying with the idea of a 28-300, but from what I have read so far, it's OK for general purpose shooting, but the quality degrades toward the 300 end. I'd love to try that one out though!
Linda,
Any of the "ultra-zooms", e.g. Canon 28-200, SIgma 28-300, others in this zoom and price range, are dubious compromises. I own the Canon 28-200, and I will prolly keep it, but you really have to compensate for the shortcomings of the lens. I understand the Sigma 28-300 is similar. The issues include:
- Soft at full telephoto
- Generally soft wide open, though not too bad in middle of zoom range
- Lack of contrast and visible CA at 200mm
- Need to stop down makes them incredibly slow; for max. sharpness, f/5.6 at wide, f/8 at tele, then still need to boost contrast at tele end
That said, stopped down and in good lighting I have taken some very pleasing, sharp shots with the 28-200. It has become my travel lens.
If you are in the market for a good, versatile lens that is capable of great shots in less-than perfect lighting conditions, however, avoid the ultra-zooms.
Thanks kirbic. I guess it's a case of "if it looks too good to be true..."! The "idea" of the ultra-zoom really does appeal to me, but I really think there are too many downside issues to make it practical.
