Amazon Music Unlimited Offer: 3-Months For FREE!

Around ?1500 to spend on upgrading.


gareth01422 13 213 United Kingdom
12 Dec 2012 9:50AM

Quote:The advice you got is just the same as I would give. Spend your money on the glass. Some pros look on the body as if it were film. That is you don't spend on film any more the sensor is effectively the film. Think of the body in terms of the cost of film processing. 8 a pop for film and development soon mounts up and if you divide the cost of your camera body by that it puts the price into perspective.
I have that 70-200 F4L and it's brilliant. Very sharp and very light. Once you start on L lenses they get to be addictiveSmile
Alan



Will I get the same sort of sharpness from the 24 - 105?

also, If for some reason I got into sports photography, would the 70 -200 F4L be any good for this?
mikehit 11 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
12 Dec 2012 10:04AM

Quote:also, If for some reason I got into sports photography, would the 70 -200 F4L be any good for this?

What sports? For indoor sports, you may find a 85mm lens is enough. For Football from the stands even a 400mm lens may not be enough.
I have the 70-200f4L IS and I love it as a superbly designed piece of engineering as much as a high quality lens. But if I were buying again, I would get the 70-300L IS - reputedly as sharp at 300mm as the 70-200 is at 200. Some will say 'but the 70-200 is a contant f4', but I would not really mind: at 200mm the 70-300 is (I believe) f4.5 or f5 so it is only half a stop difference). And I would get another 100mm range in a lens that is about the same weight as 70-200 + 1.4xtc.


Quote:Will I get the same sort of sharpness from the 24 - 105?

They are different lenses for different purposes so I am not sure that any direct comparison is meaningful and at 30mm the overlap is not one that would have you worrying about which one to use.
alansnap 17 577 26 United Kingdom
12 Dec 2012 1:17PM
YOu can't compare the 70-200 with the 24-105. They're both excellent lenses but you'd be using them for different purposes. You could try the 70-300L, which might b better for sport, but as Mike says it depends on the sport. I have a 5D Mk II and I went to the velodrome in Manchester armed with my 100-400 and the 24-105, only to find that the 24mm end of the shorter lens was very useful because the action is so close. At footie or rugby you'd need to be at pitch side and use a very long lens for most action. In other words it's a compromise, but using an L series will give you ultrasharp images and you can crop those quite a bit depending on the sensor quality of course.
Alan
gareth01422 13 213 United Kingdom
12 Dec 2012 1:52PM
right ok, thats great.

Ive also been to the velodrome and saw the England team train. wow them guys go really fast.

Well I have 2 lists, both lists are for new, Second hand wouldn't be much different.

1 x Canon 60D 480
1 x Sigma 10-20 f4 303
1 x Canon 24-105 L 579
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1362
- 5% from Panamox if
ordered through bank
transfer 68.10
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grand total of 1293 = 207 left from Budget


1 x Canon 7D 694
1 x Sigma 10-20 f4 303
1 x Canon 24-105 L 579
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1576
- 5% from Panamox if
ordered through bank
transfer 78.80
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grand total of 1497.2 = 2.80 left from budget


I am actually thinking more towards the 7D as I don't want to be thinking of upgrading if I find I do like sports photography.

Ive also been to the velodrome and saw the England team train. wow them guys go really fast.

Ive also email panamoz asking for discount as Im spending a ton of cash and they said they would send free of charge, thought it wasn't bad, but going to ask again.

Gareth

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.