Canon 350D and Lens choices

[TomWilko]

Basically, going to bite the bullet and pay for a 350D this christmas. But I am not sure about lenses and where I need to go with them. I was looking for peoples opinions on the standard kit lens you get with the camera, and whether I am best off ditching that option and actually just getting the body and buying my own initial lens.

My second choice is I also need a zoom lens to deal with the large amount of Motorsport Photography I am doing. This will only increase in 2006 so I need something better than average but not crazily priced. I like the sound of the Canon EF70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM coming in at the £350 - £400 mark dependant on where you look. Is this a highly rated lens? Seeing reviews from google I am gauging it is good for the price, particularly because of the Image Stabilisation, or is this over-rated?

My alternatives would be to go for a cheaper lens but I am unsure on performance, or spend that bit more on a Canon EF70-200mm f4.0 LUSM. Obviously the clarity should be better because it is L glass, but without the image stabiliser am I going to suffer? Seeing as its a shorter length as well and £100 more expensive, I would be looking for real superior quality for me to go with this.

I am looking for general advice really on lenses, would like a good zoom lens, and need to know whether the kit lens will suffice for my general photography needs!

[shiato storm]

standard kit lens quality varies HUGELY from what i've heard. some get lucky with a razor sharp one, others get one as soft as butter...i guess if you get a good one hand onto it!
before i continue i stress you budget to spend as much as you can on good lenses. I recommend the 70-200 L lens you've picked, it is a good start and - although I don't have it - from all i've heard its excellent. plus you should be able to find it for around £400. where ever you found the 70-300 for 350 is a bit expensive to me!! there is little point spending money on not-quite-up-to-it lenses and eventually end up spending for L glass a few months later anyway cause you find you need it

getting the camera and kit lens PLUS another would be a good idea, as from what I understand you'll be after a zoom of sorts, and having a kit lens would - if need be - give you a little extra flexibility.

[da_ging]

i dont think the IS of the 70-300 is going to help with motor sports photography and optically that lens is supposed to be the same as the non IS version ie soft at the long end and way off L quality , the sigma 100-300 F4 is 1 to look at if you want more range than the 70-200's and can be had for £550 and is always highly recommened by ppl

id also avoid the kit lens if you want something in that range then the sigma 18-50 EX is highly recommended ,when i finally save up enough for the 350d this will be the first lense on my shopping list anyway

[TomWilko]

For the time being my budget on my first zoom lens is going to stay at around the 400 mark. As anymore now and it starts to get abit crazy for what I am after, thanks for the suggestion of something I hadn't seen though

My main concern more than anything is the suitability of the 70 - 200mm at Motorsports photography, particularly as it doesn't contain any IS...is this a major factor? Canon are saying that it allows you to increase shutter speeds from 1/500 to 1/60 and still maintain a good clarity. But then, the clarity of the image in the L glass is going to far surpass anything from a cheaper lens.

Regards the extra focal length, not to much of an issue right now. The tracks I largely go to allow me to get close enough to the action so something like a 70 - 200mm with the 1.6x multiply factor of the DSLR would be more than plenty.

My current digital camera - Fuji S5500 has optical zoom to equivalent 370mm, but I rarely go for full zoom as it goes soft towards 250 and beyond, much like I am being told happens with the 70 - 300mm.

[shiato storm]

yes, I was thinking it but didn't put it down, the crop-factor on the dSLR would give you that little bit more so the 70-200 would be ideal. as far as IS goes you have to spend a fair bit of money to get it and since thats not really an option then I wouldn't worry to much about it at this stage. it does allow lower shutter speeds of 2 or 3 stops at the same apperture but if you're shooting sports outdoors then that isn't really a problem, IS does help at the longer focal lengths for sure (i have the 100-400mm L and the IS on that is an absolute necessity) but you could easily get away with using a tripod...in fact a monopod would do you better since its easier to move around with one. so, IS isn't a major obstacle to over-come if you don't have it...
don't be fooled by extra focal length other lenses might give you - the longer the lens goes, and the greater the zoom range, the harder it is to keep sharp and quality of light. the range 70 to 200mm is about enough to maintain max apperture, go up any more and it has to change (100-400 goes from 4 to 5.6, its impossible to keep it at 4 without making the lens impractically massive in both size and expense!), its also good because its over-all length remains constant, the 70-300 (i believe) sticks out as it move in/out its zoom range. a lens that doesn't alter its length when it zooms is a good thing.
one last thing, remember what time of year we're coming into...canon will start doing cashback offers on their cameras, there's one out on the 20D and there might be one for the 350D too. also if you get either a 20D or 350D they come with a cash-back booklet, and there's a voucher for the 70-200 f4 in there but the vouchers only last to the end of the year so its just a case of do you/don't you...?

[TomWilko]

Thanks a lot for that post Shiato, much appreciated

The immediate purchase for myself is obviously the camera and initial lens. I am still weighing up whether it is worth me wedging out about £1000 for all this gear at once, or spread the cost out over a 2 month period or so, I won't officially won't need the lens until the new year when the season comes around - however getting it sooner = more practice and hopefully more skill from having it. (I know what I am like, I'll probably get it all at once!)

The jump in price between the 70-200 without IS to the one with IS is far to much for me to stomach, and, like you say I do generally shoot only in good light conditions. The requirement for anything over 200mm is just not needed right now, the furthest I am away from a track is probably Silverstone, of which there is places you can get close you just have to be patient normally.

I am convinced, the 70-200 L is the way forward. Are you supplied with a lens cap and sort of carry bag to hold it in aren't you? Or is that seperate peripherals?

[chrestomanci]

Image Stablisation helps remove bluring caused by camera shake and a to slow shutter speed.

Before IS was invented, the rule of thumb was that most photographers could sucessfuly shoot handheld at a shutter speed of 1/(focal length) so if you have a 250mm lens, then you need to set your shutter to 1/250 or faster to avoid shake. If there is not enough light to shoot at 1/250 then you have to use a tripod or an image stabalised lens, OR speed up the shutter by using a lens with a bigger apeture, faster film or using a flash. Most IS lenses will let you shoot 3 stops (8x) faster and still get good pictures, so in this example you could set your shutter to 1/30 on a 250mm lens.

The thing is, you plan to photograph motorsport which will take place outdoors in good daylight, so it will be very unsusual for you to need to set your shutter to 1/250 or below, unless you are using a very small apeture (f number) to get a very large depth of field, or to deleberately lenghten the exposure in order to produce motion blur from the movement of the cars.

The way I am estimating your shutter speed is by using the "Sunny f16 rule". That is if you are photographing outdoors in direct sunlight, and your apeture is set at f16, your shutter speed should be 1/(ASA film speed), so if you have set your digital camera with the sensitivity of 200 speed film, and your apeture is f16, then your shutter should be 1/200. As f4 is four stops brighter than f16, in the same situation your shutter should be at 1/3200 which is obvously fast enough to counter the shake of even a huge lens. Even if we allow 2-3 stops dimmer condtions in british overcast weather, you will still have a fast enough shutter not to have a problem.

In summary, I don't think photographing motorsport would benifit from using IS lenses.

[McMav]

remember 1.6 crop factor does not make the 200 mm lens a 300mm lens its still only 200mm

its just the image you capture is the same field of view as a 300 mm lens on a 1:1 sensor so you stillzoom 200 mm just you get image on your sensor the same as a 300mm field of view not the same magnification.

[shiato storm]

when you're doing motorsport you'l be using the lens near-on fully open all the time, and the type of shooting - I'm guessing - will involve panning techniques so IS wouldn't serve much use. add to the fact you can bump ISO upto 1600 (i think) on the 350D which means you can easily account for the f4 over f2.8, and f2.8 with IS...that would be more suited to low-light photography. I'm not sure who still follows the 1/focal length rule much anymore but its a good thing to know and start off with, but I have managed as low as 1/100 or 125 at 400mm on 200asa film, hand held, and get pin sharp results...

[chrestomanci]

when you're doing motorsport you'l be using the lens near-on fully open all the time, and the type of shooting - I'm guessing - will involve panning techniques so IS wouldn't serve much use.

Agreed. In fact with some IS lenses it would hinder as the IS would try to compensate for the panning movement. More modern IS lenses can be set to ignore panning.

add to the fact you can bump ISO upto 1600 (i think) on the 350D which means you can easily account for the f4 over f2.8, and f2.8 with IS...that would be more suited to low-light photography.

True, but increasing the ISO will add a lot of noise to the picture, which is rarely a good thing. In any case I think we are agreed that TomWilko will have plenty of light for his photos, and will not need to resort to tricks such as IS lenses, high ISO settings or large apeture lenses to get the fast shutter speeds he needs.

I'm not sure who still follows the 1/focal length rule much anymore but its a good thing to know and start off with, but I have managed as low as 1/100 or 125 at 400mm on 200asa film, hand held, and get pin sharp results...

I think it teaches you the difference between when you are pushing your luck (as in 1/100 at 400mm) and when you have no chance.

I am into nature photgraphy myslef, and as most wildlife comes out at dusk, when there is much less light, I do get loads of blured pictures because I tried to photograh a bird at 1/15 on the end of a 300mm lens. (And then cropped it till it was 1000mm equvalent).

[shiato storm]

I tried to photograh a bird at 1/15 on the end of a 300mm lens. (And then cropped it till it was 1000mm equvalent).

yup...unless its made of stone I would have suspected this to happen...things would start to lose definition once you begin cropping and enlarging as well, you're asking for trouble when you start down at 1/15...kudos though if the result is nice and clean!! what lens was it for 300mm?
i had a really nice shot of a couple of horses grooming each other, I zoomed right in (400mm) it looked great, released the shutter. film finished. then checked settings - i was in manual mode and was stopped down to 1/15 anf the apperture has a few more stops left to go! needless to say the result was what we might term 'modern art'...nothing distinguishable but pretty colours all the same!

[TomWilko]

Fascinating stuff! I normally shoot my current Motorsport pictures (can be seen at meangasoline.co.uk) on a point and shoot Fuji S5500 at shutter speed ranges of between 1/160 through to 1/400. This generally creates, from a side on angle the sort of blur I am happy with. If I can happily shoot sharp images with the L glass like this, and then add in the advanced quality and image brilliance DSLR's offer...I will be a very happy person!

The reason I am a little concerned about how useful the IS function is, has mainly been caused by Canon pointing out how much it can affect the shutter speeds and the like. On the canon.com web-site it does include the 70-300 IS USM in its list of 'sport' cameras, however the 70-200 L USM is not mentioned.

I am sure this is just advisory though surely, and it isn't actually a be all and end all.

Found this image taken at 1/200, with the L Glass, definately looks positive on the panning side of things!

http://www.pbase.com/image/41991358

[shiato storm]

don't always take what a website says as gospel. sure, canon want you to buy their lenses but its also good to hear from others who have experienced using a bit of equipment and whether its upto the job.
yup 70-200 f4 L is much better in quality, both build and resulting images, than the 70-300. no contest so don't worry what canon put on their site.

[chrestomanci]

yup...unless its made of stone I would have suspected this to happen...things would start to lose definition once you begin cropping and enlarging as well, you're asking for trouble when you start down at 1/15...kudos though if the result is nice and clean!! what lens was it for 300mm?

The bird (a kingfisher) was perched, so it's movement was not a problem. Mine was seeing as I was photograhing it from a boat. In the end I got a usable picure with a lot of grain, and some motion blur, but much better than nothing.

As I use a Nikon (a D70) I was using one of their basic 70-300 f/4-5.6G lenses. Of course I should have been using one of thease, but seeing as I can't afford 7.5k I was not. For my next trip, I am considering the possiblity of buying a longer image stablised lens such as the 80-400 f4, which can be had for about 750 ukp from ebay at the moment.

i had a really nice shot of a couple of horses grooming each other, I zoomed right in (400mm) it looked great, released the shutter. film finished. then checked settings - i was in manual mode and was stopped down to 1/15 anf the apperture has a few more stops left to go! needless to say the result was what we might term 'modern art'...nothing distinguishable but pretty colours all the same!

Yes manual exposure can be a pain to get right

I have a Russan 8mm fish eye, that is entirely manual, and is not supported by the camera's auto exposore system. I have got some great pictures from it, but also a huge number of shots similar to what you describe.

[BUFF]

mmm, thought of getting a Minolta Dynax 5D or 7D?
Both have in-body anti-shake so that all your lenses become stabilised.

The Minolta 18-70mm kit lens with the 5D is reputedly better than the Canon kit lens although both of course can be bettered by spending more.

tbh if you could afford it a Canon 20D is probably the best camera for you.

[shiato storm]

i'm rather suspicious of the in-camera anti-shake. at least the lens ones are specific for that lens and are designed to support focal range of that lens...