Hey Guys,
Currently I have gone out and got my self a Canon 1000D with the 50mm F1.8. Cheap as chips and its allows me to take advantage of Canons range of Lenses.

Now I'm looking at starting to come to track days and wondering what you suggest as a 2nd lens. I have no idea of distance from the track but I expect I would be looking at about 100-200mm needed?

I'm currently looking at the 70-200mm F/2.8 as it covers from my 50mm up and is quick. (I do alot of shooting sports within gyms (basketball, taeknown-do) so if I'm going to spend some money I made as well go low aperture (Approx $1600) . The 100mm F2 and 135mm F2 are also on the table but at $650 and $990 would I just be better to save up for the 70-200?

Ideas?

Thanks Zllab

70-200 is awesome. i love mine!

also, look into sigma lenses. one of the guys off here is selling a sigma 70-200 f2.8 and it is almost of the same quality as the 70-200, but for 1000 less.

and you really wont notice the difference on a 1000D

I wont notice the different because of the lower quality sensor in the 1000D compared to the full frame sensors?

well its a crop sensor lens, made for those cameras, i cand find a review on it comparing the two, nut yeah VERY similar, even on a 40D

if you go the 70-200 on the 1000d you'll actualy have a 112 - 320mm lens.. Due to the 1.6multiplier, so that'll have some nice reach on it

i wouldnt touch sigma with a ten foot pole.

Whys that Dave? I heard that because they only make lenses, they actually arnt that bad... im not doubting ur reasoning, can u explain why plz...
What Would u recommend? stick with ur manufacturer of the camera?

he's a canon fanboy.. ahah

But be good to see why you say don't touch sigma.. Apart from canon and nikon branded lenses, sigma are the next best thing. And in some cases, a number of people prefer sigma lenses over canon/nikon, as they give a warmer feel to the images that are taken.

I know I noticed big difference in sigma and canon 24-70, sigma had deeper colours in some of the shots i took.

i find the focus is faster on a canon or nikon ... and the companys make the lense for there cameras so would know more about it .. the build of them is alot more robust and the weather seal on the canon is better too. the only sigma lense i use is the 10 20mm that one actually comes out better than the 10 22 canon and the canon is an EFS lense that wont work on a 1 series body whereas the sigma one will. but i have tried the 70 200 sigma and didnt like it. overall i prefer the canon lenses i find that they are reliable with sigma some of the batches arnt as good as the other batches so u might get a good lense u might get a shit one with issues.

I've never used a sigma lens myself... but i've had friends who have and their results are very good... I've only got Canon lenses for my Canon camera... so I don't want to sound too much like a hypocrite or anything... but if I was looking to buy a particular lens, and the sigma variant was better then the canon, I would definitely swap too it.

There was an awesome site, I can't remember what it is (and it's not dpreview.com) that only reviewed lenses... and they had a huge data base, they would review the lens and then people who owned them would place their own review and sample photos... if you can find that site you'll be able to see for yourself first hand what some of that glass can do.

Best advice is to take your body into the camera shops and snap a few photos with various lenses using a colour card for reference, but before you make your decision, go home and have a look at the results on your computer check for sharpness, bokeh, contrast of colour, overall picture etc and then make your decision...

a mate of mine found a 70-200 with a 1.4 extender on his 50d looked better then a 100-400 strapped straight onto the body even though they worked out similar prices...

it pays to shop around.

Matt

im the same i prefer to use 1.4 with 70 - 200 than a 100 400

Can i trouble you guys to simplify what you guys just said...
im still learning...
what does the 1.4 extender do? multiply the lense by 1.4?

exactly...

it's literally an extension tube that mounts between your lens and body multiplying your zoom factor by the amount stipulated

canon for example has a 1.4 and a 2.0x extender.

the 1.4 is noticably sharper in comparison to the 2.0...

and to really confuse you... every time you use an extender you will lose an F-stop or 2....

i.e. your F2.8 lens will only stop down as low as F4... with a 1.4 that is.

makes sence!! thanx
what lense would u recommend a keen amatuer photographer to get?
witha budget of about 1 - 1.5K

I realize the 1.6x Multiplier..thats all good.

What I'm trying to get my head around is 'Jayrads comments about

"... you really wont notice the difference on a 1000D"

I just assumed that seeing its the cheapest DSLR on the market the senor is going to be the 'crap' compared to the high end models. But looking at the Canon website all the Canon DSLR have the CMOS Sensor with DiG!C III Image Processoring.

The only difference I see is if its full frame or APS-C and obviously the megapixel (but megapixel hardly matters to me.)

Your body is going to let you down for low light stuff. i have a 350d and a 40d, the 350d shows the same noise at iso 200 as the 40d does at iso1000.

but saying that i have a 70-200 f2.8 and its just amazing. LIke really amazing!!! i also have a 1.4x and a 2.0. 1.4 is amazing 2x is good if you dont shot wide open i.e f5.6 and works better i cloudy conditions...

saying that ill be get a 400 f5.6 when funds permit.

I've used Pentax cameras and lenses as well as Sigma lenses on Pentax and Canon lenses on Canons, I too am no expert but if you can afford an L 70-200 you will not be disappointed but I am looking seriously at the Sigma 2.8 as it is cheaper than the 70-200 f4 and is faster glass.

One thing to note is the sensor and processor are different things much like the cpu and monitor are on your PC, although the monitor would be working in reverse .

I've read a review on Tamron's latest which is a 70-200 f/2.8 and apparently it's a total flop, slow, soft and heavy. Personally I think, if pro's use the Sigma 2.8 than I'm going to consider it.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8089

read through that should help, there is also abit about the sigma 70-200 lens in there saying that if you buy it be prepared to exchange it or return it to sigma, though it is a nice lens when it wants to work

Multipliers.......

Just don't do it.

i dont rate the 100 -400

i liek the 70 200 and with 1.4 just as nice

If you are thinking of using a multiplier..... Go to this address

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews...FLI=0&API=1

Let the pic load.

Without clicking on it..... move your mouse on then off the pic.

The amount of Quality loss with even a 1.4 is quiet big..... let along a bigger multiplier.

If it was the way to go..... no-one would buy long lenses.

im just saying in my experience 1.4 on 200 mm is sharper and faster thats all

No prob's...

I have used an extender and it was b a d

But it was not on a 70-200...... it was on the 28-300 or the 300 prime L series ( can't remember which )... but I was disappointed.

The 70-200 may be different.

i have shot top fuelers down the bottom end at the drags and 1.4 200 catured sharp clear images same with 300mm with 1.4 and had a 70 % sucess rate with the 400mm

was it the series 2 converter u used or the older one ?

Don't know.... it was ages ago and just borrowed to see how it was. If you say it works good on a 70-200.... so be it.

I just have a problem with them based firstly on my experience and secondly with concept of them. If you look at the lenses in a L series.... the amount of them and how they all work with each other....then to just throw a converter on to magnify the image..... it just seems 'nasty' in some way.....lol

Cheapens the whole 'deal'...... know what I mean?

Note... they obviously serve a market..... I would not go and buy a $10,000.00 400mm f2.8 lense.... so if I definately needed that for a job..... a converter is a good option.

not really thats what they are made to do they have L glass in them to its not just empty and they work just adds another element to the lense ... and between 500 - 700 au not really cheapening in my opinions.

i see ur point thoguh...

just think have 70 200 and a 1.4 in the bag saves u carrying a 20 700 and a 100 400 etc

each to there own

70-200 with 1.4 is fucking amazing

300 2.8 is fucking better..and an extra 20mm...

edit..matt come to v8sc and you can play with a 500/4 or 400 for a little bit

can i play with it aswell ^^

hahah i shoudl hope so for 5g more lol

no i dont want to play with them (ok maybe for 5mins ), ull make me go into debt to buy one