EF 70-200mm f/4L USM vs 3rd party?

usayit · Apr 28, 2008

Perhaps the "Bigma" then... you did say in another thread that your budget was $1000. Or perhaps the next step is to wait and save.

prodigy2k7 · Apr 28, 2008

Did I say it was 1,000? Really? if I did sorry, I dont really have a budget, im more of less thinking about it in my head like "can i afford this and is it worth it" kind of thing.

DSLR noob · Apr 29, 2008

yeah you said you were looking for sub $1000 L lenses making it appear that you had a $1000 budget.

prodigy2k7 · Apr 29, 2008

oh yes, sorry. Basically 1K max, like, would pay 1K but wouldnt like to. Like 10K max max max, like it would take me saving up to get 1K..

Mystwalker · Apr 29, 2008

Wait a couple more weeks for the two new Sigmas to come out (5/10?). I believe it is a 150-400 for ~$850 and a 170-500 for around $1000.

Both with OS (Sigma's IS).

On Canon side, I think the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is perfect for outdoor children activities, but that is over $1600.

Mav · Apr 29, 2008

If you're doing horse racing and kids soccer you're probably going to want faster shutter speeds to freeze action, so you could probably get by just fine without the IS version of the lenses, or if you just want to do some panning shots, use a monopod. The 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS is a little over $1000 and far more reasonably priced. You'd probably want some sort of support for extended shooting with a big lens like that anyways since they're so heavy. Either that or you'll get a good workout.

usayit · Apr 29, 2008

but Mav...

Don't you find 200mm a bit restrictive on a soccer field?
OP did say outdoors in daylight. So wouldn't you agree that the f2.8 stop isn't all that much of an advantage?

My cousin and I shot a polo match once. He borrowed my 70-200 f2.8L IS and I had my 100-400mm L IS. Yeh.. he had a faster aperture and nice glass but half of his photos required a bit of cropped which ended up a royal pain. Mine had more "keepers" simply because of the reach. Even when the clouds rolled in a simple bump of the ISO resolved that issue but the lack of reach in the 70-200 was still a problem.

There is a guy at work that shoots wildlife (wolves and birds mainly). He rents glass and often states that a 400mm focal length is just the beginning of the range he requires.

to the OP..
Honestly, I'd keep saving... and allow time for Sigma to release their new offerings as Mystwalker posted.