Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2020 posts, RR: 7 Posted (8 years 21 hours ago) and read 2627 times:
A Russian friend of mine, an aspiring aviation photographer, asked me for a favour, which is to ask for an advice for him here. He wants to buy a new lens, and he would like some opinions from the seasoned A.net photographers. As for the picture quality, he has A.net standards in mind, and he thinks this forum would be the best place to ask this sort of questions.
His options are the Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM, Canon 75-300 4-5.6 IS USM, or Sigma 50-500, he needs to decide on one of them.
He works at an airport, so he can get fairly close to aircraft, but he also takes quite a few pictures at a fair distance, in wide range of different weather and at night.
Those are different generations of the same lens. The 70-300 isn't bad for the price, but your friend should keep far away from the 75-300. The 50-500 is a really nice lens, but I would think he might want something more useful without having to use a tripod in low light.
My suggestion? If he can afford the 50-500, then he can afford the lens he really should have: the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L. If he has any aspirations of taking this to a professional level, there are really few other options - certainly none at that price.
Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (8 years 20 hours ago) and read 2609 times:
Quoting AC773 (Reply 1): My suggestion? If he can afford the 50-500, then he can afford the lens he really should have: the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L. If he has any aspirations of taking this to a professional level, there are really few other options - certainly none at that price.
Probably isn't far off the price of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2020 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 2570 times:
To sum it all up, I can tell him that 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM is a good lens for the price, 75-300 - no good, Sigma 50-500 is a bit heavy without a tripod, right? And two other good options - Canon 70-200 f/2.8L and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS...
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 2567 times:
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 4): Canon 70-200 f/2.8L and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS...
The 70-200 is a good lens, especially for low-light photography. It's fine for av photography, but lacks range a bit. It's possible to add a 1.4x to get a 98-280mm f/4, and a 2x to get a 140-400mm f/5.6, but I'd rather buy the 100-400, which is a very good lens for av photography (at least IMO). I've got little experience with the 70-200 f/2.8L, so owners of that lens should tell you about it.
Dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 2562 times:
I use the 75-300 IS USM and the 50-500. The 75-300 IS USM is a great lens to begin with, nice and light and easy to use but the 50-500 is far sharper and has a superior range of focal lengths. I rarely take it off the camera these days because it covers most situations and dust on the sensor is less of a worry. Its not a lens you can just put on the camera and use though, it takes some getting used to. I use a monopod in low light situations but when the sun shines, I find it easy enough to hand hold even at 500mm (been doing that today!).
This was taken at 417mm with the 50-500 hand held as she climbs away from Liverpool's runway 09.
[Edited 2007-04-27 17:19:59]
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX