I have a Cannon 20D and currently use a Cannon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6. It does ok shooting outdoors most of the time, but when I shoot indoors at my sons basketball games it doesn't seem to let enough light into get good shots.
My question is this. I want to move up to a better lens. It will be used mostly for wildlife/nature photography and games, and everyday life type shots. I would like more zoom power for the wildlife shots and the lens I'm wondering about is the Cannon EF 100-400mm f4.5/5.6 L IS USM. Will I really be gaining anything with this lens other than a bit more zoom power?? Am I still going to be dissapointed in the indoor shots?? Do you have any suggestions on what I need? We are planning a trip to Colorado next summer and I'd like get something soon so I can get some practice before that trip. Water fall shots will play into this as well. Any help and or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Cherlyn
The 100-400 will not give you more light (same maximum aperture) but does have image stabilization which will allow you to use slower shutter speeds. Another option is a good flash unit with something like a Better Beamer.
Image quality with the 100-400 will likely be better than your current zoom. Some say it's not up to the same standard as other "L" lenses but my personal experience with it had been pretty good (though I only used a borrwed copy a couple of times).
Guy
Posted by Leann Greene on August 21, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Cherlyn,
You mention waterfalls also,do you have the kit lens 18-55mm? I use the digi rebel with the kit lens along with circular polarizer and it's good to have a 4x ND and 8x ND filter on hand incase there is too much light and you want to make the water look flowy. The 18-55 mm lens is assuming you will be close to the waterfalls.
I disagree with Guy in the shutter speed point. IS is supposed to to give you approximately two more stops of handheld shutter speed without blurry pictures. That much is true. But the assumption there is that the things you are shooting are not moving. IS will reduce camera movement, but it won't reduce subject movement. You said you want to shoot sports, and for that the IS won't help a bit! (Okay, the backgrounds might be less blurred, but the players won't be!)
For basketball--asssuming you can get reasonably close to the action, I'd suggest a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens. (Yes, despite the above, I'd still suggest getting IS!) It does cost somewhat more than the 100-400, but the extra speed of the f/2.8 is worth it.
You don't say what ISO you're using, but in typical gyms you can probably get 1/60 or 1/125 @ either ISO 1600 or 3200 with your max aperture. Before moving to another lens, I'd be tempted to push your ISO, then use a noise reduction program to clean up the results.
Paul's right about the need for faster shutter speeds to freeze the action- over and above any consideration of IS to deal with camera movement. Those kids move FAST!
Posted by William Lloyd on August 21, 2006 at 3:37 PM
Second the 70-200 f/2.8L IS - and you can always add an extender if you need a little more reach - the EX1.4 behaves fairly well on this lens, and still gives f/4.0.
If you venture into shooting in RAW format, you can always cheat a bit and shoot a stop under and gain shutter speed; you can bring the exposure back up in your RAW processing.
You really are asking for two different tasks to be resolved by a single lens - low light medium telephoto/zoom, and the reach (and again, low light capability) for shooting wildlife. Shooting wildlife with a prime lens will give the more satisfying results.
Start with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and if wildlife/birds gets to be a more demanding part of your photography, there's always the 400mm f/5.6 at around $1100....after that, it's crazy $$$.
Posted by Kelly Rowe on August 21, 2006 at 3:38 PM
Chosing a lens is such a pain... I almost hate to comment. My thoughts are that if you are mostly using the lower end of your 75-300 for indoor sports shots, then investigate the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Paul mentioned. I use that for a lot of indoor activities, and coupled to a 1.4X or 2.0X TCII, it's quite versatile for nature photography as well. My personal opinion is that it is the sharpest zoom Canon makes. The low-light shooting capabilities are excellent and the IS helps when I've had too much caffeine. The down-sides, if any, are price and weight. It will cost you about $1700 and it weighs 3 pounds without the tripod collar. Save a few dollars for a back brace.
Here's a cheap trick for you that I shamelessly stole from Milton Heiburg: Use the 70-200 with a 2.0X TCII for shooting butterflies and other shy creatures. You've got a 400mm lens that focuses down to about 4 feet. You can easily fill the frame with a butterfly without scaring it off.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on August 21, 2006 at 5:14 PM
If you can get close enough to the sidelines, the EF 85/1.8 is worth a look for the indoor basketball games - fast and sharp.
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 21, 2006 at 9:49 PM
In my personal experience, the 80-200mm f2.8 lens is going to work best. You need lots of speed. It's going to cost you big bucks though. The 400mm will be better for wildlife, but forget it in dimmer light. For that reason I own both an 80-400mm VR lens (Nikon equivalent) and a non-IS 80-200mm f2.8. Without IS (VR in Nikon) the lens is half as much, but I always use a tripod with it.
Kent in SD
Posted by Barb Hansen on August 21, 2006 at 9:51 PM
Hi Cherlyn I shoot all of our little High School sports, especially Basketball. I've tried several different lens' and a couple of things come to mind: part will depend on how close to the court you will be, the other is speed of the lens. You can try shooting at ISO of 800 or more but I've never been happy with the shots. Currently I shoot a Sigma 20mm 1.8 @ ISO 400 but I am also sitting on the end of the court usually pretty close to the basket. The EF 85/1.8 that Jim E. mentioned is definitely worht a look too. Another lens for your outdoor shooting to consider might be the Canon EF70-200 f/4L - the price isn't too bad and it is really light lens also very sharp.
Discussion
9 repliesMy question is this. I want to move up to a better lens. It will be used mostly for wildlife/nature photography and games, and everyday life type shots. I would like more zoom power for the wildlife shots and the lens I'm wondering about is the Cannon EF 100-400mm f4.5/5.6 L IS USM. Will I really be gaining anything with this lens other than a bit more zoom power?? Am I still going to be dissapointed in the indoor shots?? Do you have any suggestions on what I need? We are planning a trip to Colorado next summer and I'd like get something soon so I can get some practice before that trip. Water fall shots will play into this as well. Any help and or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Cherlyn
The 100-400 will not give you more light (same maximum aperture) but does have image stabilization which will allow you to use slower shutter speeds. Another option is a good flash unit with something like a Better Beamer.
Image quality with the 100-400 will likely be better than your current zoom. Some say it's not up to the same standard as other "L" lenses but my personal experience with it had been pretty good (though I only used a borrwed copy a couple of times).
Guy
You mention waterfalls also,do you have the kit lens 18-55mm? I use the digi rebel with the kit lens along with circular polarizer and it's good to have a 4x ND and 8x ND filter on hand incase there is too much light and you want to make the water look flowy. The 18-55 mm lens is assuming you will be close to the waterfalls.
For basketball--asssuming you can get reasonably close to the action, I'd suggest a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens. (Yes, despite the above, I'd still suggest getting IS!) It does cost somewhat more than the 100-400, but the extra speed of the f/2.8 is worth it.
-Paul
Paul's right about the need for faster shutter speeds to freeze the action- over and above any consideration of IS to deal with camera movement. Those kids move FAST!
If you venture into shooting in RAW format, you can always cheat a bit and shoot a stop under and gain shutter speed; you can bring the exposure back up in your RAW processing.
You really are asking for two different tasks to be resolved by a single lens - low light medium telephoto/zoom, and the reach (and again, low light capability) for shooting wildlife. Shooting wildlife with a prime lens will give the more satisfying results.
Start with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and if wildlife/birds gets to be a more demanding part of your photography, there's always the 400mm f/5.6 at around $1100....after that, it's crazy $$$.
Here's a cheap trick for you that I shamelessly stole from Milton Heiburg: Use the 70-200 with a 2.0X TCII for shooting butterflies and other shy creatures. You've got a 400mm lens that focuses down to about 4 feet. You can easily fill the frame with a butterfly without scaring it off.
Kent in SD