Brick From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1572 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1785 times:
I would tend to go for the longer lens. You won't necessarily need the f2.8 all the time, but you certainly will need the 500mm. Just my $0.02 though. If you tend to do dawn/dusk shots then go for speed. Otherwise I'd go for length.
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 49 Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1780 times:
it all depends what kind of ground you want to cover and what you want to shoot.
You shoot @ CLT correct? Do you really need the 500mm or are 200mm enough? Me personally I did acutally go for the 500mm as with 200mm u can not do anything @BOS. What kind of 500mm do you have in mind?
If you really have the money ???? go with a 400mm F4 or 600mm F4 and then maybe a 2x teleconverter => nice range!!!
Usairways@clt From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 209 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1781 times:
I'm currently using Canon A2E along with a Tamron 70-300 4.5-5.6. My camera I think is great, but the lens doesn't give me the sharp picture that I like - but on the other hand, I am always whining about how I missed the perfect shot because it was too far.
300mm is suitable for some of the areas of shooting, but I just uncovered a goldmine of places where I would definitely need the extra length.
If you can hook me up with 7500 grand, by all means I'll go with your system.
I was thinking of a Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO HSM Auto Focus lens *or*
Sigma Zoom Normal-Tele 50-500mm f/4-6.3 APO EX RF HSM Auto Focus Lens. Is this too slow?
Anything better and you are getting too expensive. Unless, you know of a lens I don't.
TOP From Germany, joined May 2000, 264 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
I have the canon 100-400mm IS USM lens and I'm very satisfied with it! f2,8 is nice but with a long range you can do much more than with a high speed. The Image Stabilisator reduces the vibration so that you don't get blurry pictures!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1733 times:
After years of buying increasingly longer lenses (I got up to a 600mm Sigma), I sat down last year and worked out how many times I actually needed to use the long lens, and then how many GOOD shots I actually got. The answer was depressingly small. After a lot of thinking about how, where and when I take pics, I traded my 600mm and 400mm in against a 300mm f2.8 and 1.4x and 2x convertors.
I've found the 300 much more veratile than the longer lenses, and, by buying top quality lenses and convertors (Canon make), I can still get the longer reach when I really need it with no real noticable drop in quality.
Lawrence feir From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 39 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1725 times:
Go with the fast lens if you can afford it.
I shoot Canon equipment and my all time favorite lens is the 70-200, 2.8
It still takes wonderful shots with the Canon L1.4 teleconverter. This is the lens I shoot most of my air to air as well as ground to ground shots. It's great in low light and it's really sharp!
JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1709 times:
I would go with a fast, zoom lense like
Lawrence recommended. I too have a Canon
70-200 2.8, along with the 2x converter.
So with using the converter, you get
140-400 5.6. I would go always with a faster
lense over the length. Plus with a 500mm, I
do not think you'll get a zoom capability. I
have shot a 500mm fixed lense before at a football
game and I didn't like not be able to zoom in and