Please could you guys give me some advice on a lens?

Instead of getting that canon 70-200 f/4 usm i was thinking of ive changed my mind to a canon 200mm f/2.8L because it seems to be on little demand so i might be able to get it cheaper second-hand. I know i wont have zoom caperbilitys and at 200mm im gonna have to shoot at least 1/125 with steady hands but ive heard that its better for sports and faster photography because of f/2.8 and should produce sharper shots than with the 70-200 series. There doesnt seem to be that many websites with reviews and stuff because of its little popularity, but all of the reviews i have read give it 9 or 10/10. so if anyone knows anything about this lens or any reccomendations please let me know.

Thanx!

200 2.8 is good lens, but personally i wouldnt use a telephoto prime, other than portraits. You could get sigma 70-200 2.8 for about same price than canon 70-200 4. Sigma desent have so good iq, but its still pretty desent and for great price. Iv been thinking of gettin that sigma with 2x tele converter, but im not sure if i need telephoto so much i would use money for it that much.

This post was edited by Tomes on Feb 20 2009 11:20am

Just get the 70-200 f4.
200mm prime is too long on crop cameras for everyday use.
If you really want to get a prime get the 135 f2.0 L (the lens is INSANE).

yeah that looks incredible and its black!!

ive seen your work using this lens and i cant distinguish it from pictures like the ones in magazines. ill read up on it!
would you say its good for general use and action photography, etc?
and is it pretty durable?


thanx for your advice mate





i dont think id be interested in third party lens, but thanx for ur advice!

This post was edited by doyleo on Feb 20 2009 01:58pm

Imo there isnt enything that you should be afraid on sigma lenses, other than they have more backfocusing issues compared to canon, but again thats not enything you should be worrying, since you can just send it for calibration. 135mm is a really great lens, but somhow i think its not what your looking for, its more of a portrait lens for full frame(or great candid portrait lens for crop), the focal lenght and the fact that its a tele prime is really restricting what you can shoot with it.

yeah but i thought (220mm) would be good for shooting sports and action scenes, and it would be possible to shoot in lower light than the 200mm L. The problems with the 70-200mm is its White and its got a smaller aperture for a similar price as the primes, and its bigger and its got a little worse iq - so the only thing your benefitting from is that you can chose 70 or 200mm or anything in between.

yes the 135 is very solid, lightweight and looks awesome too.
It's the close 2nd most incredible lens I have ever used.
I think 135mm is a great focal lenght, people that want a telephoto don't really know what they want, they grab a 200 or 300 and never use it.
135mm is a fantastic lens and it's the longest I'd ever use in the city and on a daily basis.
Oh, it's also TACK sharp from f/2.0, and the AF is super fast.
I really can't vouch for it enough.

The only thing that could make it better would be IS and weather sealing.

Problem with primes and sports is that you need to change your position in same range as the people your shooting are moving, with zoom you can just stand still in audience and zoom where you want. Or if your shooting some ice hockey game for example that spot where the people are in the right focal lenght is really small. And i dont want you to spend really much money on some lens you cant use as much as you hoped. Allso you should remember when buying some lens like 135mm your camera cant get the iq what it can make out of your camera enyways.

Exacly what are you looking the lens for?

This post was edited by Tomes on Feb 20 2009 03:04pm

85mm 1.8 is a nice one and lessthan half the l series... is a nice lense

this is true but if a decide to upgrade my camera in years to come i can also use this lens with it.

i want it for countryside sports such as horse racing, etc where it is possible to move around a lot. When i use the 18-55mm when im walking around i very rarely use anything below 50mm, even for landscapes if i need to move further away, fine - i just dislike how wide angle shots look, fair enough they are good inside but not out.

If i got the 200mm id worry that i couldnt be bothered to use it because 320mm is a lot of lens to hand hold. If i got the 70-200mm id regret not getting a 135mm or a lens with f2.8. I hate the look of the 70-200s as well, why canon made them white... i do not know.


But what i would like to know is - would the 135 (220)L be good for what ive said and make a good companion for my 450D and maybe a future eos....