Lens Recommendations

[Samanax]

Folks here don't like to click on links to galleries...better to imbed the images in your post and you'll get more C&C that way.

To imbed an image from Flickr. Go to the picture you want to use from Flickr and click on "All Sizes" (above your picture). Select the size you want to display and then look below the picture for the #2 box that says "Grab the photo's URL:". Highlight to select it and then right click the selection and hit Cut (or Copy). Now go back to the TPF (The Photo Forum) post you want to imbed the image in. Click on the orange and grey icon above the message box (the one that looks like a tree with a camera in the front of it). In the box that pops up, paste the URL in box (make sure you only have 1 "http://" in the URL line before you hit the Ok button). Hit the Ok button. Click on the "Preview Post" button to see if your picture is imbedded in the post.

 

[Annamas]

You've definetly got an eye, I'll say that much.

If those idea's are confusing, pick up "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. I know it's cliche to mention that book, but it goes a long way to understanding the basics of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc.

The lower the aperture value (2.8 is pretty low) the wider the aperture opens up, allowing more light onto the film / sensor. Shutter speed is how long you allow the light to get to the film / sensor. In tune with each other it will equal the proper exposure. On top of this, their are variations of both shutter and aperture that will change the creativeness of the shot, but still produce a proper exposure.

In the little bit of sports photography i've done, it relates like this. A larger aperture (2.8 over 4.0) will allow more light in. When shooting sports you're going to want a very fast shutter speed to stop the action. Because the shutter will not be open as long (I'm thinking 1/1000 of a second or less) your going to want to let as much light in as possible when it is open. So a 2.8 will provide more consistent exposures when the light starts to die down (dusk-ish). Aperture also affects depth of field (DOF), a 2.8 is pretty narrow and will only focus in on the subject. So if you're trying to take a shot of a field, or multiple subjects it doesn't work so well. Luckily must apertures stop down pretty well.

For those reasons I would splurge on a f/2.8. I haven't had much experiance with IS technology, so I'll let someone else point out the merits and demerits of that aspect.

EDIT. I'm sorry if any of the aperture stuff is confusing. I'm still trying to figure out how to convey it. Numerically 2.8 is lower than 4.0, but the aperture is actually larger at 2.8 than at 4.0.

 

[wunwhlup]

 

[bigtwinky]

Definatly pick up Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. I'd try and get a better understanding on the technicalities of the lenses before putting down serious money (but thats me). While the forum's consensus (and pretty much the world's) that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is am amazing lens, it might not be the one for you.

A friend with a Canon 5D Mk II bought the f/4 instead of the f/2.8 as its much lighter and fit fine with his style of work.

So read up on things and learn about them. As suggested, rent before buying. Make sure you test the lenses out in similar conditions on similar subjects to get a good base comparison.