decisions decisions

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Jono, Oct 7, 2007.

  1. Jono

    Jono TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    13
    About 4 months ago I bought a 70-300 Tamron lense and so far it has served me well. Now that I am seeing the limitations, however it was a cheap lense bought to get me into longer range photography & motorsport before I bought something expensive. Not sure which way to go now tho.

    I currently shoot with a 350D, but I have just sold my MX5 trackcar and have some cash to spend on my photography, up to £1300 to help me get more advanced. I have a couple of options:

    1: EF100-400mm L IS USM to use with my current 350D and have a few quid left over for a new kit bag/back pack & an A3 printer

    2: sell my 350D, change to a new 40D body, Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG HSM(or similar), kit bag/backpack & an A3 printer.

    Most of what I shoot is motorsport, espacially close action sports like rallying, motorcycle road racing as well as circuit work. Whatever I go for, I also have the standard 18-55mm kit lense and a 10-20mm. I have started to get a bit of interest in my shots, and had a couple published in local motorsport mags, so I want to be able to move up to the next level.

    Would either of the above be suitable for this, or what would you suggest?

    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I shoot motorsports and love my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for this. If for your stuff you end up needing a bit longer, you could always use the Sigma 1.4x tele which works extremely well with the sigma 70-200.

    I also used the 350D/XT for the majority of the season (before I actually knew I was making money) and it has worked VERY well. The only main thing I am gaining with my 40D is the 6.5fps/75buffer, and I really only needed that when I shot a dodge viper show when about 50 dodge vipers drove by me in about 2 mins or less.

    Anyway, my vote would be to try the 70-200. Canon's is also very good, but for a f/2.8, the Sigma is a lot cheaper, and has treated me GREAT. Having bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, there's no way I'd turn back time to get a canon instead.
     
  3. Garbz

    Garbz No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    keep the 350D. The lens will serve you far better. As for which lens... I'm a nikon guy so i'm bailing right about here...
     
  4. soylentgreen

    soylentgreen TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Definitely go for the lens unless there is limitations in your current camera that you want to upgrade up to. The 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS is an excellent zoom lens for nature and stuff. But for fast action sports, motorsport, etc, you may be better served with a faster lens that will be able to give you a faster shutter speed so you can stop action. The EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS or non-IS would be excellent choices along with the Sigma mentioned. I prefer IS if I am going to hand-hold shots. If not a monopod or tripod will suffice. The 1.4x TC on the f/2.8 works miracles. Would not reccommend the 2x TC though.
     
  5. Jono

    Jono TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    13
    been thinking of changing the camera to a 400D, body only they are cheap as chips now, so that would leave a very healthy budget for glass.
     

Share This Page