i need a fast lens!

Ecas32 · Apr 15, 2009

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rum-photo-gallery/162411-composition-c-c.html
my lens is extremely slow! i shot this with m 75-300 canon ( i know its not a good lens). this was shot at like 4:30 in the afternoon with nearly NO cloud coverage. i had to shoot at 1/200 5.6 and iso800.

i need to find a better lens, and im getting a job over the summer, so hopefully the cost wont matter too much (please keep your suggestions in the mid triple digits

)

nickisonfire · Apr 15, 2009

well the link doesn't work first off

and if your looking for a fast telephoto obviously the most popular is the canon 70-200 f/2.8 but that's quite out of your price range.

you should probably look into getting the 70-200 f/4 which is cheaper (still maybe out of your price range) but also not as fast.

William Petruzzo · Apr 15, 2009

The 70-200 f/2.8 can be pricey, but if you buy a used non-IS version, you might be able to pick it up for $600-$700 (I bought mine for $680 two years ago). If you can swing it, I would. The difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is an awful lot of light.

Although I've never used them, I've heard decent reviews about Sigma's comparable model also. They're standard on Adorama for just under $700.

Josh66 · Apr 15, 2009

I would go for one of the 70-200 L's.

There's also the 100mm f/2 for $410 or the 100mm f/2.8 Macro for $490 for (sort of) inexpensive telephoto primes, if you want to go that route. (I would go for the macro.)

CxThree · Apr 15, 2009

If you are looking at photography for the long term, save your money and get the 70-200 F2.8L or the IS version. Either one will sserve you very well for many years. You just have to decide if the IS feature is worth the extra funds.

If you are shooting outdoors, the 70-200 F4L is a great choice. Lighter than the 2.8, but VERY sharp. I have them both. They rock.

Ecas32 · Apr 15, 2009

im really liking that 70-200 f2.8. would i get 2.8 throughout the whole range?
i really wish i had a job right now.....i gotta wait till school gets out.

photogincollege · Apr 15, 2009

Yes its 2.8 through the whole range. One of the reasons its so expensive.

Ecas32 · Apr 15, 2009

wow i really really need this lens.

time to start savin up........

photogincollege · Apr 15, 2009

Its an AMAZING lens. I'm a nikon shooter but i've used it on a few occasions on my old teachers (now just a good friend) 5d. Thats one awesome combination

.

Ecas32 · Apr 15, 2009

ya man i was looking a some customer reviews on adorama and every single one was five stars. and whats good is my english teacher (also yearbook teacher) has that lens on a school camera. maybe if i brought my camera one day she would let me test it..... but im not positive if its the f4 or f2.8..........i'll have to ask her tomorrow.

photogincollege · Apr 15, 2009

Have you held it? If its REALLY heavy for its size, its probably the 2.8, if its just kinda heavy for its size, its probably the f4 lol.

Ecas32 · Apr 15, 2009

nah i havnt gotte a chance to yet...... but i will keep that in mind (or i could just look on the lens)

tomhooper · Apr 15, 2009

I personally like prime lenses. You might think about a Canon 300mm f/4L. The IS version is about $1200.00 (I like mine) but the non-IS is somewhat cheaper if you can find one. Neither B&H or Adorama has them on their website at this time but it will gives you a little more reach than a 200. Of course you could go to the f/2.8L IS for around $4000.00.

LarryD · Apr 16, 2009

While the 70-200 f2.8 is a phenomenal lens.... don't get it for the wrong reasons..

Your early morning shot at 1/200 and 5.6 will be the same, regardless of the lens...

What the "fast" lens would let you do is dial in f2.8 and shoot at a faster shutter speed......but you don't need it for that shot, and you lose DOF and edge IQ.

While I applaud your desire to find better glass.......technique is more important to getting "better" photography, rather than buying equipment in the belief that it alone will improve that same photography.

Ecas32 · Apr 16, 2009

LarryD said:
While the 70-200 f2.8 is a phenomenal lens.... don't get it for the wrong reasons..

Your early morning shot at 1/200 and 5.6 will be the same, regardless of the lens...

What the "fast" lens would let you do is dial in f2.8 and shoot at a faster shutter speed......but you don't need it for that shot, and you lose DOF and edge IQ.

While I applaud your desire to find better glass.......technique is more important to getting "better" photography, rather than buying equipment in the belief that it alone will improve that same photography.

well this was not a early morning shot. at all. it was shot in the afternoon at about 4:00 and it was plenty bright out side with no cloud coverage.

and that is exactly what i want to do- get a faster shutter so i wont have camera shake. and a 2.8 aperature is good for what i want.... just the subject in focus, i dont want the backround distracting

i know technique is good, but when your shooting at a slower shutter speed then zoom (1/200 and 300mm) its pretty hard to not have camera shake.

so thanks for the input, but i really do need this glass