re: LSU Picture/Camera Question (Lsuconnman, FLtiggah, etc.)

I am really debating on getting the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS with the 40D. This is going over budget, but I figure I will always keep the lens.

Also Tiger, what are you planning on using the camera for? That's going to determine to a large extent what lens you want to get. 70-200 is not something you're gonna want to carry around with you all day -- it's really a sports/wildlife type of lens but way too big and bulky to be an everyday shooting lens. Consider your usage and buy accordingly.

The 70-200 is not a landscape lens. In reality, it is not all that heavy, but it can wear you down after a long day. If you are set on getting the 70-200, I would recommend the 2.8 over the 4.0 and IS. The IS will not really help when it comes to sports. Your shutter speed should be high enough that you would never need the IS. However, were you going to use it for things indoors that are not sports and do not need a high shutter speed, it could help you. All depends on what you are gonna use it for.

I would recommend checking out LINK for some excellent no-nonsense camera and lens reviews. I still think a 70-200 might be something you should upgrade to if you get your camera and feel like you need it. There's no shame in kit lenses these days.

Guys:

Let me know what you think about this. Is there that big of a difference in the f/2.8 vs. f/4. I figure I can pick up a smaller lens on the side.

LINK

They offer the IS with both the 2.8 and 4. These numbers describe how wide the aperture blades open up in relation to how long the focal length is. Therefore, the 2.8 will allow more light in than the 4.

With that being said however, that lens is a very good lens. Know that it will have one less stop than a 2.8 whenever you need to use it in lowlight, but to stay within your budget that may be something you are willing to sacrifice.

Also, with all of this, I hope you are willing to learn. While there are some people who will just use the preset settings on these camera's, they will yield much better pictures if you are willing to take the time to learn how all the factors will affect your final picture. Now, I'm not saying to use manual all the time. I'm just saying that it may be helpful to learn some of the semi-manual modes that are offered.

Thanks Guys!!

I think I am going to go with Canon 40D w/ a 28-135mm IS kit. I will save some cash by going with the 40D instead of the 50D. I will use the extra cash to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 next month or so.

I can get the 40D kit for $1,024 from buydig.com. I will shop around for the lens and try to find it for a grand or so. Blowing my budget, but that is nothing new.

quote:

---

MSTiger33

---

One ESSENTIAL book for you would be Understanding Exposure, by Bryan Peterson. It is considered "the Bible" for beginners.

Another good book is The Digital Photography Book, Parts I & II, by Scott Kelby.

Both can be had for around $35 on Amazon. Excellent information.

Join a photography message board as well, so you can get some good critique and feedback on your photos. I belong to this one.

I don't know about Buydig.com (they do have decent reseller ratings), but when buying stuff online, the best places are:

Adorama
BHPhotovideo
Amazon
Cameta Camera (eBay)

If an online store is more than 20% cheaper than everyone else, chances are it is a bait and switch scam.

Good luck and post some photos when you get your new camera.

Most photographers I know, use B&H photo or adorama for online purchases.

I would get the 50D because it high ISO performance is vastly superior, and will let you push any lack of lighting much further.

As for the difference between the f/4 or 2.8...there's a huge difference. F/4 is unusuable without a flash in anything more inclement than overcast clouds, and flashes are prohibited at NCAA events.

Basically, the change of an f-stop equates to doubling or halving the required light needed depending on whether you increase/decrease it. That isn't a huge deal for the nature photographer, but is critical to a sports photographer.

You also have to realize the kit type lenses that go from 70-300 or whatnot, can't maintain the f/4 at longer lengths. They may achieve f/4 at 70mm, but at 300mm the minimum will be 5.6 or 6.4, so you actually will need 8-16X as much light to achieve the desired shutter speed.

consequently, the 70-200mm lens only requires 1/8th as much light that the 70-300 needs if both are used @200mm.