got a £1k to spend! ......help me

Robbo

Robbo

Messages
3,962
Edit My Images
Yes
Right just managed to get about 1k to spend.

I really been looking at the 70-200mm canon range, Im really getting into my sports photography and feel this might be a nice lens to have in my bag.

I love the bokeh in sports pictures, while my 70-300 produces sharp images, it doesnt seperate the people from the BG etc as much as I would like. aslo the iso has to be bumped up on a dull day, while the 2.8 would give me lower iso

So....does this lens sound like a good choice for sports? to short? keep saving?

it would be out of the IS or Non IS version. pretty similar or is one better in sharpness?

thanks
 
Bokeh can easily be achieved on the 70-300...

For motorsport I would guess 200 is going to be to short on most tracks, for that budget you could pick up a 2nd hand 100-400L which should do the job...
 
Like I said when you asked before, of course it can isolate subjects, but it does depend on how close you are and how far away the background is.

If the background is the back of a pit garage and you are shoving the camera up Tom Chilton's nose it looks like this:

bh_btcc_ak_100502-61.jpg


Whereas if you are looking out the other way from the inside of the Airwaves BMW garage at Dave Bartrum with the track as the background it looks like this:

bh_btcc_ak_100502-123.jpg


Most of the uber-bokeh effects you see will be from 400/500/600 primes - that just melts backgrounds!

bh_bsb_ak_100402-133.jpg


Lastly, is a 70-200 too short for sport? Depends on the sport! My 70-200 is my most used lens by a long way - its so versatile and excellent. Sure a 300 prime is a useful tool, but the 70-200 is my main weapon of choice, everything else gets second place.
 
yes you can get a bit of bokeh from the 70-300....but not as much as I like....so if you compare the same shots but one with the 70-300 and one with the 70-200 the 70-200 would produce more bokeh still ?...wouldnt it?

its also to do with shutter speed....I find on a dull day I have to bump my iso up, so the 2.8 would give me better iso

the 100-400 I was looking at aswell....I think the 70-200 and 100-400 might give me a nice set.
 
Well, your 70-300 is f4 to about what 180mm? (I have one for my Canon but can't remember), so you'd gain a stop in terms of available light. Obviously the 70-200 doesn't go much longer than that ;-)

You'd only get more bokeh if you actually opened it up wider than the shot you are currently taking... also remember that action photography with narrow DOF can be a hit or miss affair!
 
desantnik said:
Well, your 70-300 is f4 to about what 180mm? (I have one for my Canon but can't remember), so you'd gain a stop in terms of available light. Obviously the 70-200 doesn't go much longer than that ;-)

You'd only get more bokeh if you actually opened it up wider than the shot you are currently taking... also remember that action photography with narrow DOF can be a hit or miss affair!
Click to expand...

Yes I know the hit and miss.....

What I am after is a bit better AF with the 2.8 and centre AF point.

lower iso because of the 2.8 etc

and I really want to try to just up my game a bit tbh, I want a more professional looking picture, yes I know its down to me more than my kit, but I feel this lens might help my in the little parts mentioned above.

hmmmmm
 
Ok, let me help you... Is the Canon 70-200 2.8 a cracking lens? Answer yes, most definitely its one of, if not THE best they make. So its definitely better than your current (but still credible) kit.

Will a f2.8 lens help your 50D focus better - yes!

Can you get lower ISO usage by having a f2.8 lens, maybe but maybe not as you start to get into narrow DOF's that maybe you don't want and don't work.

Is it worth the 1k upgrade? A tricky question - I was in exactly the same place as you with my 30D a few years back and never could quite convince myself it was worth the plunge.... if thats any help!
 
desantnik said:
Ok, let me help you... Is the Canon 70-200 2.8 a cracking lens? Answer yes, most definitely its one of, if not THE best they make. So its definitely better than your current (but still credible) kit.

Will a f2.8 lens help your 50D focus better - yes!

Can you get lower ISO usage by having a f2.8 lens, maybe but maybe not as you start to get into narrow DOF's that maybe you don't want and don't work.

Is it worth the 1k upgrade? A tricky question - I was in exactly the same place as you with my 30D a few years back and never could quite convince myself it was worth the plunge.... if thats any help!
Click to expand...

makes sense.......so...my question is, after you took the plunge....was it worth it?
 
If it's a tough decision for you, I'd suggest you hire or borrow one, then you'll know if it's worth it or not.
 
To go against what's been said already. The 70-200 2.8 is night and day compared to the 70-300. Faster shutter speeds, shallower depth of field, sharper images.

I think you know you want it so do it would be my advice :thumbs:

Also - be sure you understand the importance of distance to subject when referring to quality bokeh. If it's for football you'll not likely be close enough to the player to make the bokeh really special. (Good examples by desantnik)
 
Robbo said:
makes sense.......so...my question is, after you took the plunge....was it worth it?
Click to expand...

Well, I moved to a 70-200 when I swapped over to Nikon. If I had stayed with my Canon 30D, I don't think I would have made the spend. However, I would have gone for it had I gone down the 1D MkIII route instead.

It was a complex decision process for me that was a case of juggling money to yield the best motorsport results.
 
ryanyboy said:
If it's for football you'll not likely be close enough to the player to make the bokeh really special.
Click to expand...

Yes, not that its my particular choice subject but I did shoot a bit of rugby end of last year.

This is 200mm f3.5, shot down the length of the pitch from right on the back line. You'll note how the backgrounds hasn't really vanished nearly as much as I would want - not too bad in this shot, but when you get some ugly mf gurning in the background its *horrid*

balls1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top