Photography biff vs new lens..

Discussion in 'Photography' started by A2_Matelot, Mar 4, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. A2_Matelot

    A2_Matelot LE Book Reviewer

    I've a Canon EOS 450 and mainly use an old Sigma 18-200mm (f/3.5-6.3 DC OS) lens for general shooting, and it has to be said mostly the kids at sports events, or the odd airshow, day out. Nothing too specific.

    I'm pondering a new body but suspect I won't really see any big differences so had thought about a better lens, which may help.

    Looking at lenses the Canon L series seemed great until I saw the price, then I noted (ebay) these:

    Sigma EX 70-200mm F/2.8 APO HSM DG OS Lens

    Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

    Not being hugely savvy, from what I read the f/2.8 compares with the canon's 300m - can that be right? What I'm really after is a better quality lens than the one I presently have and if possible additional zoom, for the sports matches.

    I know this will make decent photographers shake their heads in frustration - its too easy with DSLRs to ignore the basics and just crack on.

    So, any advice, gratefully received.
  2. Are you using your current Sigma via an adapter? According to the listing, the eBay lens has a Sigma mount, not a Canon one!

    What is it about your current shots that you want to improve? Sharpness? Noise?
  3. I've been looking at the canon 70-200 l f4.0. You can get it for around £400. Would that be out of budget? It gets great reviews, however it's seen as inferior to the slightly more modern canon l lenses (but also a grand more).
  4. A2_Matelot

    A2_Matelot LE Book Reviewer

    Bollocks!! Good spot, I looked at a few over the weekend and did not the mounts but have stupidly followed this one! Thanks!!

    I really want additional sharpness and if possible better range. Being naive I thought a 300mm had to be better than a 200mm lens but from basic internet sites I can see some flaws in my thoughts, I'm also just reading up on f-stop and can see why the f/2.8 lens may be perceived to be a better lens.
  5. A2_Matelot

    A2_Matelot LE Book Reviewer

    I could be swayed for £400, but the lenses I've seen come in at approx 1/3 of that - is the 70-300 IS USM lens that much worse - at £275 its cheaper? And the real question will I see a difference over my current 18-200m lens?
  6. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens: Electronics

    That can be had for £399.99. Maybe less if you shop around. As with everything it depends, an amazing photographer will take a better photo with the £100 lens, than I would with a £10k lens. However, it will be easier to get a doog result with the l lens, it will last a lot longer, it will take more abuse. And it will always be worth something, and long term you might get close to your money back.

    If you google it, you will find some reviews talking about it.

    In reality though, I am sort of comparing the 70-200L with the 100-400L and I cant justify the money so won't be spending it. Just do what seems right for you mate.
  7. A2_Matelot

    A2_Matelot LE Book Reviewer

    Thanks Sammy. IF I could get the Sigma EX lens that is F/2.8 capable if I understand it correctly, that means it can have a wider aperture for better low light handling, wouldn't that make it a better all round lens?

    Last stupid question - 200mm or 300m, does that really make a difference over the range I can shoot?
  8. All things being equal, then having a lower f stop is better. However I it's a bit more complicated at that. This explains it better than me: Photography Tutorial - Aperture and F Stops Explained - YouTube

    And yes it will make a difference between 200mm and 300mm. However you can always walk a bit closer to what you are trying to photograph or simply crop your photos later on.
  9. It depends how steady you can hold it.
  10. LINK: DxOMark - Compare Camera Lenses
    Obviously, it's just a website (so don't treat it as gospel) but they do have a fair reputation.

    Have you tried using a monopod? If any of your lack of sharpness is due to camera-shake at slowish exposures, it'll help a lot. Shouldn't set you back more than about 20 quid. Fewer leg-sections make for quicker handling, but if you want something that folds up small, go for more.
  11. Or a lightweight tripod and an infra red remote. You set up the shot, stand to the side and zap, picture done, no shakes or wobbles. I tend to use the tripod/remote for night work.
  12. ;-)
  13. A2_Matelot

    A2_Matelot LE Book Reviewer

    A huge thankyou for all the responses. I have some reading to do (watched the video - made a lot of sense) and I really need to get a better understanding of basic photography (a lot less point & shoot will help).

    I'm going to go and find a shop and play with some lenses, I think actually putting them on the body will probably help. need to find a Jessops!

    Cheers all!
  14. See bold :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Good luck with that ^^
    • Like Like x 2