mcarterbrown.com  

Plugged in Online Gaming, and Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-06-2012, 09:08 PM   #1 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PEI, Canada

Lenses for Canon Discussion

Currently my collection consists of only my T3's stock 18-55, and a 50mm f/1.8 as my primary lens.

I really love my prime lens, and a 35mm is on the list to get at some point, but the 50mm was on sale, and how do you say no to $90 glass?


First on my list is something to expand what I can do for paintball photography. I'm trying to limit my spending on lenses that will be used mainly for paintball. After all, I can't really drop $2000 on a lens as it is, let alone one I stand a halfway decent change of breaking at some point.

Something like Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di is 2/3rds the price of the same lens with Vibration Compensation, and I'm wondering how much I would miss it for shooting something like paintball. After all, it is fast motion shots, and I would generally be shooting in the 1/1500 to 1/4000th shutter speed in full or near full sunlight. Is skipping out on VC for a budget lens intended purely for paintball or tripod use likely going to be something I will regret later on?

Also does anyone know something about that lens that would make it horrible for my needs, or have something far better for similar price?

Other opinions on things I should be considering while planning out my purchases for the next while?

Thanks.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lrrpie-CT View Post
I destroy drives for clients all the time. Sometimes, intentionally.
Luckless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 10:10 PM   #2 (permalink)
Happy and homeless
 
sparky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Alberta Canada
Send a message via Skype™ to sparky

Can we get a rough budget for what you are shooting for?

How about picking up a Non IS 70-200 F4 L Canon? They go for around $600 bucks IIRC used and are excellent lens for nearly any situation.

Canon 85 1.8?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by heinous View Post
we're talking about camping, not being homeless
Vagabond living on the side of the road in East Asia.
sparky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 10:21 PM   #3 (permalink)
Shop Smart,Shop S-Mart
 
doc Zox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006

That lens is nether fish nor fowl

Get a faster 70-200
http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35m...c=80285&r=WG&f
doc Zox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 11:02 PM   #4 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PEI, Canada

Current limit for spending on a lens by the start of the season is going to be about $600CAD, more means either putting it off a few months, or slashing other budgets. Even at that point it is fast approaching what I would be able to replace in a reasonable time frame after I break it.

But where is something like the Tamron 28-300 going to fall short for shooting in bright daylight? The CA is noticeable, but appears acceptable to me in all the test photos I've seen for reviews. (But honestly I haven't found a single unbiased sounding review of the thing, or the VC version. Either it gets bashed for not being a lens costing 2-5x the price, or seems to get praised simply because it is something other than Canon's own line.)

Also really not a fan of buying used gear unless I can actually get my hands on it before exchanging any cash.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lrrpie-CT View Post
I destroy drives for clients all the time. Sometimes, intentionally.
Luckless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 08:07 AM   #5 (permalink)
ton up boy
 
baader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Finland

I got a non-stabilized Sigma 70-200 2.8, itīs a great paintball lense if you can find one used it should fit nicely in your budget. Or you could try the Tamron counterpart.

You donīt need stabilizing where you shoot fast shutter speeds, but you will need faster lense. You will be mostly shooting the lens at the tele end and 6.3 in that Tamron 28-300 is not gonna cut it.
__________________
You're on an internet forum.
Every first post is a cry for attention.
-heinous-

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/f...-feedback.html
baader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 08:41 AM   #6 (permalink)
Devil Dog
 
ballyhoo33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Des Moines, IA
Send a message via AIM to ballyhoo33 Send a message via MSN to ballyhoo33

I used the the Canon 70-200 F4 non-IS for all sorts of photography for many years. It's a bargain for the image quality that it produces. This lens can be found for $500 used. In low light, it's going to hunt, otherwise it's fast.
ballyhoo33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 11:23 AM   #7 (permalink)
Doesn't care (/◕ヮ◕)/
 
JLuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lafayette, La

CCM Fan
AKA Fan
Ugh, why cant nikon have a few lenses like that in that price range. I cant spend the 2k on a 70-200 f2.8, i'd be happy with a f4 but they dont make them D:
__________________
Feedback


I don't always play pump, but when I do, I prefer a rotor.....stay agg my friends.
JLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 11:29 AM   #8 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
240SX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

CCM Fan
Quote:
I used the the Canon 70-200 F4 non-IS for all sorts of photography for many years. It's a bargain for the image quality that it produces. This lens can be found for $500 used. In low light, it's going to hunt, otherwise it's fast.
I have the 70-200 F4L and that thing is amazing. The color and sharpness of the photos I've taken with it are fantastic. I picked mine up used for $400 I believe. With regards to it only stopping down to F4, with the modern cameras ability to control noise at higher ISO settings you can bump up your ISO and not worry about it too much. I photographed a bodybuilding show using that lens (no tripod) and the shots were great.
__________________
Quote:
"Move swift as the Wind and closely-formed as the Wood. Attack like the Fire and be still as the Mountain."
Sun Tzu
Feedback:
eBay
username: bacreman, 100+, 100% positive
Tdotballers.com
http://www.tdotballers.com/forums/in...&#entry1062159
Mcarterbrown.com Feedback
http://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/f...-feedback.html
240SX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 04:56 PM   #9 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PEI, Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by baader View Post
I got a non-stabilized Sigma 70-200 2.8, itīs a great paintball lense if you can find one used it should fit nicely in your budget. Or you could try the Tamron counterpart.

You donīt need stabilizing where you shoot fast shutter speeds, but you will need faster lense. You will be mostly shooting the lens at the tele end and 6.3 in that Tamron 28-300 is not gonna cut it.
Thanks for pointing that lens speed out. I messed up the script I was using to sort and highlight products, and then apparently kept misreading that. Moral of the story is: Don't shop for technical gear while tired.

After some more digging around for what I can get, I'm really thinking that I might go back to my earlier gut feeling of sticking with primes for my main collection. I really enjoy shooting with them, even if I lose a ton of flexibility shot to shot.

Currently thinking canon's 85mm now, and a 28 or 35 that was already on the books for purchase, and then maybe a 135 near the end of the year/next season if I decide to expand.

Somewhat torn between the 85 and the 100mm primes. I've used both in the past, and enjoyed them, but I kind of get the feeling that they were too similar to justify investing in (and lugging around) both of them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lrrpie-CT View Post
I destroy drives for clients all the time. Sometimes, intentionally.
Luckless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 08:22 PM   #10 (permalink)
Mind Your Manners
 
Mike Deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tampa Bay

1/4000 is serious overkill for paintball. I'm routinely shooting 1/1250 tops in full sun.

The Tamron 28-300s are also lousy lenses. Strong CA, poor sharpness, poor contrast. At f6.3, autofocus will be unreliable if not impossible. $420 puts you so close to 70-200 f4 territory (Especially used), you may as well take the additional leap for the tried and true.

Primes are going to be obstructive for paintball.
Mike Deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  mcarterbrown.com » General » Off-Topic » Plugged in

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC