Originally Posted by Deej (Post 16705746)

the one i was suggested to was a 27-200 f2.8 - $1100

Originally Posted by PSSuperstars (Post 16705755)

That's the Ultra, right?

hah.. I'm gonna have to actually login and take my own damn calls to not feel guilty about buying that one ;)

Originally Posted by Deej (Post 16705746)

the one i was suggested to was a 27-200 f2.8 - $1100

Originally Posted by xenigo (Post 16705783)

I've not heard of this one. Do you have a link?

Originally Posted by Deej (Post 16705784)

perhaps im mistaken on numbers, lemme check real quick..


EDIT - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...tialSearch=yes check this link...

Originally Posted by xenigo (Post 16705801)

If you want to do any serious photography of any kind, you need to have an L lens with a constant aperture. The last thing you need is your aperture changing from 4.0 to 5.6 because you zoomed, and it totally fucks your exposure. With one of the L 2.8 zoom lenses, you'll never have to worry about that.

Originally Posted by rowan (Post 16706027)

I just had a quick look at the lens list and most of the L series telephotos are the same aperture at the wide and telephoto end of zoom range... the only exception seems to be the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM

One other issue is where focus changes as you zoom, although that should be quickly fixed if you're in AI servo mode. (Even if you're not a quick half pump of the shutter will refocus...)

From memory there are several L lenses that are parfocal which means they don't need to be refocussed if they're zoomed.

Originally Posted by rowan (Post 16706027)

I just had a quick look at the lens list and most of the L series telephotos are the same aperture at the wide and telephoto end of zoom range... the only exception seems to be the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM

One other issue is where focus changes as you zoom, although that should be quickly fixed if you're in AI servo mode. (Even if you're not a quick half pump of the shutter will refocus...)

From memory there are several L lenses that are parfocal which means they don't need to be refocussed if they're zoomed.

Originally Posted by xenigo (Post 16705801)

That's a nice lens, and one that I'd like to have personally... but it's such a long telephoto that it's not really usable for most purposes except for ones requiring some super long reach. I couldn't even use it in most locations because they don't have enough space. And, that's one heavy ass lens... I shot a wedding with one as a second shooter and my arm was trembling after a half hour... lol

Originally Posted by xenigo (Post 16705801)

If you want to do any serious photography of any kind, you need to have an L lens with a constant aperture. The last thing you need is your aperture changing from 4.0 to 5.6 because you zoomed, and it totally fucks your exposure. With one of the L 2.8 zoom lenses, you'll never have to worry about that.

Originally Posted by AaronM (Post 16707113)

If they were doing "serious photography" then they would probably already know this. However, they are not. This person is using a Canon 40D and as with most 40D users, they probably rarely venture off of "Auto" mode. A constant stop lens is not needed for most practical applications.....Not that it hurts but why even mention it in this thread at all?

Originally Posted by AaronM (Post 16707113)

I'll have to STRONGLY disagree with you on this. I use my 70-200 f2.8 lens on at least 85% of my work. Heavy you say? Perhaps, but it's all in what you get used to carrying/using.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Autofocus.html

This particular thread focuses on the use for sports which makes the 70-200 f2.8 one of the best possible options for the OP. Taking it a step further, it gives them the chance to add Canon's EF Extender II which will take them up to a 400mm f5.6 (I know, not a full frame camera so not a true 400mm but you get the idea)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...tender_II.html

Similar lens, good brand, way less money.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_II_EX.html

The EF Extender WILL NOT work on the 24-70 that you have but when it comes to sports, it's an inexpensive way to maximize the 70-200 lens.



If they were doing "serious photography" then they would probably already know this. However, they are not. This person is using a Canon 40D and as with most 40D users, they probably rarely venture off of "Auto" mode. A constant stop lens is not needed for most practical applications.....Not that it hurts but why even mention it in this thread at all?

Originally Posted by xenigo (Post 16708245)

A lot of people do some good stuff with the 40D. I know both you and I can get away with using the crappiest cameras Canon makes and get stuff that's better than what most people here shoot.

What have you been shooting lately? Haven't seen you post any samples in a long time.

Originally Posted by AaronM (Post 16707113)

I'll have to STRONGLY disagree with you on this. I use my 70-200 f2.8 lens on at least 85% of my work. Heavy you say? Perhaps, but it's all in what you get used to carrying/using.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Autofocus.html

This particular thread focuses on the use for sports which makes the 70-200 f2.8 one of the best possible options for the OP. Taking it a step further, it gives them the chance to add Canon's EF Extender II which will take them up to a 400mm f5.6 (I know, not a full frame camera so not a true 400mm but you get the idea)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...tender_II.html

Similar lens, good brand, way less money.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_II_EX.html

The EF Extender WILL NOT work on the 24-70 that you have but when it comes to sports, it's an inexpensive way to maximize the 70-200 lens.



If they were doing "serious photography" then they would probably already know this. However, they are not. This person is using a Canon 40D and as with most 40D users, they probably rarely venture off of "Auto" mode. A constant stop lens is not needed for most practical applications.....Not that it hurts but why even mention it in this thread at all?