Lens and memory card questions

[mitchy]

ok couple of questions..

firstly, on the weekend i borrowed matts L series 100-400mm lens for some photos at AHG, and the quality of the photos i got from it were amazing, i also loved the push/pull zoom on it.

now, i want a lens in the ~100-400mm range, the canon is about $2100 which is pretty pricey.
i have found a sigma 50-500mm which is about $1500ish, is there going to be a noticable difference in quality from the sigma lens, to the L series lens? $2100 is rather pricey, but in the same breath i dont want to spend $1500 on something that isnt going to give me a reasonable picture.


also, whilst taking burst shots, it got to about 6/7 quickly, then it slowed right down taking one every couple of seconds.
is this a limitation of the memory card? it's a 16GB SD HC card. i'm not sure if there is a faster card available, or if being a largish card that kills it a bit too?


and finally on SD cards, i've had 3 different brand cards, imation, sandisk, and the last one was a tomato as it was all i could find the day before i went away.
but all these cards seem to split the plastic housings after a while, has anyone else had this issue? they split along the outsides where they seal them after putting the actual chip stuff inside.

[R3N]

The L glass will definitely produce better quality pictures than the sigma one, best is to look online for some comparisons or see if you can borrow one and make up your mind for yourself.

There are faster cards available, look at what speed the one you currently have does.

Not sure about the card housings splitting as I used CF cards

[DRKWRX]

had the 100-400 was a good lens not as sharp as the primes but very versitile, with the cards, your camera can only burst shoot a certain amount of images before you hit the buffer, it could be your card but read the manual and see how many shots you can burst shoot at, the more expensive cards read much faster, it doesnt have anything to do with the size of the card.

[RMX]

I have not had any experience with the 50-500 Sigma, although other Sigma glass I have used impressed me. They have been very sharp with quick AF and quality IS.

Another lens to look at would be the Sigma 150-500, $1000. Here: http://www.digitalrev.com/en/sigma-apo-150-500mm-f5-6-dot-3-dg-os-hsm-3022-3022.html?match_type=1

Canon L series glass is stunning, All the Pro's that shoot Canon use it for a reason..

Is there any reason you are not looking at a 70-200 F2.8 and cropping the image down?

As for memory cards, A 'slow' card will slow your cameras frame rate down when shooting long bursts.

I use Sandisk Extreme 3 in my 450D and Sandisk Ducati CF Cards in my 50D.
The EX3 SD Cards have a 30MB/Sec transfer rate, enough for 7 jpg shots a second from a 450D.

As for cards splitting, I've got a case that all my cards live in and I've not had an issue.

[mitchy]

just had a look cause i vageuly remember it being ~50 photos.
turns out its 53 in jpeg only mode, and 6 in raw/jpeg mode.
i may turn off raw files again, as i still have no fucken idea when it comes to editing. :lol:

[adrenalin]

I use the Extreme 4's by sandisk and just have 3 4GB cards

i have a cheap shitty 16GB card for video but thats it.

Agree 150 - 500 is for a very select type of thing.

Better off running as said a 70 - 200 and run a teleconverter with it. I know some people hate them but with cameras these days they are still sharp as shit

[mitchy]

I have not had any experience with the 50-500 Sigma, although other Sigma glass I have used impressed me. They have been very sharp with quick AF and quality IS.

Another lens to look at would be the Sigma 150-500, $1000. Here: http://www.digitalrev.com/en/sigma-apo-150-500mm-f5-6-dot-3-dg-os-hsm-3022-3022.html?match_type=1

Canon L series glass is stunning, All the Pro's that shoot Canon use it for a reason..

Is there any reason you are not looking at a 70-200 F2.8 and cropping the image down?

As for memory cards, A 'slow' card will slow your cameras frame rate down when shooting long bursts.

I use Sandisk Extreme 3 in my 450D and Sandisk Ducati CF Cards in my 50D.
The EX3 SD Cards have a 30MB/Sec transfer rate, enough for 7 jpg shots a second from a 450D.

As for cards splitting, I've got a case that all my cards live in and I've not had an issue.

i did see the 150-500, however i'd like the keep the minimum focus as low as possible as i'll likely get rid of my 55-250 kit lens.

really i think i just want a super clear lens, which obviously the L series are.
would cropping down the picture on a 70-200 still give the same results as the 100-400 zoomed right in?

i think the splitting is caused by the spring mechanism in either my camera or laptop.. it might be too tight and pressing them in causes them to crack?
certainly not from being mishandled, i have a 16gb card that lives in the camera, and a spare 1gb card in a plastic case in my bag.

[DRKWRX]

really i think i just want a super clear lens, which obviously the L series are.
would cropping down the picture on a 70-200 still give the same results as the 100-400 zoomed right in?



nope, and a tele converter with 70-200mm wont be as sharp as the 100-400.

[SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS]

nope, and a tele converter with 70-200mm wont be as sharp as the 100-400.

and you would need a 70-200 f/2.8 for the AF to still work and you loose 2 stops. so it works out a cheaper option to go the 100-400L

[DRKWRX]

yeah so you would have a 140-400 f5.6 if you used a 2x converter, your AF wouldn't be the best with that setup id say.

[Magic]

What camera do you have? I am guessing an entry level Canon or Nikon as you said SD card. An Ultra Card II is capable of 3-3.5 photos per second. Otherwise yes as others have stated Sandisk Extreme III or Lexar Professional would be recommended. You can also get Lexar Platinum which is cheaper than the last two I said and may be sufficient, I can't remember how many MBPS these are from the top of my head but.

[Brockas]

Just a heads up, if you want to keep fucking around with photography, shoot RAW.

Get photoshop, and Camera Raw, and just play around with settings until you get a feel for things.

Will make a big difference.

[cplagz]

70-200 F/4L IS USM + 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter.

Versatile - it's the option I went with until I can afford or justify a prime zoom.

I like the abilty to leave the lens on and use it for nearly everything - at 70mm it's short enough to get things close to you and 200mm is long enough (just) for most things.

Automotive photography is probably like surf photography - you really need a 300 or higher prime zoom to get stunning shots.

[MattyP]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107

This sub section has some great examples of photos taken on pretty much all of Canon's lenses and other brand's lens fitment for Canon cameras.

You could decrease the size of your images if you require a faster burst of images after the buffer has reached its maximum.

Shooting RAW will absolutely eat up that buffer and make your camera reel off shots pretty slow after you've reached the maximum. I was shooting a job yesterday on RAW+L-JPG and was surprised at how quick I got to it on my Mk3. Was trying to take a shot and nothing would happen until I realised what the issue was. If you're not going to blow up the images or do epic work onto them I'd just stick to some medium res jpgs for AHG stuff esp.

Or the other option is to ease off on the trigger and be a bit more selective :p

IMO, I would weigh up the cost vs use. If you plan to use it heaps, I would probably spend the extra $600 and get the Canon. But if it's a lens you would rarely pull out, then spend ~1k for the Sigma equivalent.

As for SD cards, well unfortunately they're all pretty shit IMO. Nothing beats the durability of CF cards. You could buy a big SD card, and leave it in the camera and transfer the images via camera cable. This should extend the life of your SD card since you're not removing it and putting it in all the time.

[SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS]

70-200 F/4L IS USM + 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter.

Versatile - it's the option I went with until I can afford or justify a prime zoom.

I like the abilty to leave the lens on and use it for nearly everything - at 70mm it's short enough to get things close to you and 200mm is long enough (just) for most things.

Automotive photography is probably like surf photography - you really need a 300 or higher prime zoom to get stunning shots.

^This combo you would loose AF like stated above.

Brockas is right, shooting RAW is the only way. But, For what Mitchy was doing on the weekend, jpg would suffice, you'll get alot better bursts with the body you're using.

If you're getting serious about photography in motorsport shooting.

7D
100-400L

[mitchy]

i have had a muck around with RAW files, but i'm trying to get my photograhy up to scratch before i bother with editing... you cant polish a turd.

i'm no high roller, but i'd much rather spend $2000 on an 100-400L and know it will do exactly what i want, than ~$1500 on another setup, and 3 months down the track wonder why i didnt cough up the extra to begin with.

[adrenalin]

L Series definitely worth the extra coin if you can budget for it

[cplagz]

I've not used a TC yet - but are you sure you lose auto focus? I thought it was only on lenses f/5.6 and above that the lower end bodies drop AF... but there is a workaround.

[SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS]

I've not used a TC yet - but are you sure you lose auto focus? I thought it was only on lenses f/5.6 and above that the lower end bodies drop AF... but there is a workaround.

100%!! Anything above 2.8 you will loose Autofocus. Not to mention loosing 2 stops. Yes there is a way around it, sticking the contacts down. But what happens when they wear and you're out on a shoot and you come home with having to do heavy crops on everything or the tape fucks the contacts and you have to send it away? All because you tried to save a couple of hundred on a lens, it's just worth the hassles.

Buy once, buy well!

[Magic]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107

Shooting RAW will absolutely eat up that buffer and make your camera reel off shots pretty slow after you've reached the maximum. I was shooting a job yesterday on RAW+L-JPG and was surprised at how quick I got to it on my Mk3. Was trying to take a shot and nothing would happen until I realised what the issue was. If you're not going to blow up the images or do epic work onto them I'd just stick to some medium res jpgs for AHG stuff esp.



This is why I prefer 7D for faster shots. Dual Digic 4 is win.

[djr81]

^This combo you would loose AF like stated above.

Brockas is right, shooting RAW is the only way. But, For what Mitchy was doing on the weekend, jpg would suffice, you'll get alot better bursts with the body you're using.

If you're getting serious about photography in motorsport shooting.

7D
100-400L

Just a question do you reckon the 7D is worth the extra coin over a 550D? I kind of figured the price point of the 7D was at about the fk it stage where you would end up spending large on a 5D. Then even larger on a lense for it.

[SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS]

Just a question do you reckon the 7D is worth the extra coin over a 550D? I kind of figured the price point of the 7D was at about the fk it stage where you would end up spending large on a 5D. Then even larger on a lense for it.

To answer your question YES. But to who? Whats your application? What are you shooting?

[djr81]

To answer your question YES. But to who? Whats your application? What are you shooting?

Oh I'm not trying to decide I just wanted to try & figure out to whom the 7D would appeal. Hell I couldn't even really justify spending more on a 50D relative to a 500D. It is not the money it is just that what you get for the extra money didn't exactly light up my world. Having said that if you look at shots taken with the 5D in Raw mode (particularly in low light) & you just start slobbering and wanting one. Well, I do anyway.

And yeah it is the usual cars/family/concerts etc thing for the camera. IMHO you need to be fairly committed/picky/skilled to run out of performance on the compact SLR's that Canon do (1000D aside).

For what it is worth too I have found a 250mm lense to be more than enough at most places eg Wanners but at AHG you may want something larger to get to the cars at the back of the facility.

[Magic]

7D is more for sports photography and faster moving subjects.

[wadragracing]

As pointed out above, in most situations you will struggle to reach the limits of a 550D.
I went from 350D - 7D, reasoning mainly being the better low light performance given a lot of my stuff at the drags is at night. Quicker burst mode is also good to have.

But lens will generally be a better investment than camera.

[Daisy]

bit off topic (sorry for the hijack mitchy), but dont see the need in making a new one. but if you guys could have one lens and one lens only what would it be?? what do you see as the best all rounder? i know it depends on what you plan on using it for mainly, but if you had to pick one for all occations?

mainly as a person i know is going on holidays for 6-7 weeks and only wants to take one lens. will be doing typical touristy stuff but also going to a couple of motorsport events. he`s looking at buying a canon 7D body (all previous stuff is canon so will be sticking to that for compatability) and is looking for suggestions on what lens. money isnt a major factor but doesnt want to go silly as he isnt a professional but that said isnt half bad either. help would be appreciated.

has looked into a few lens but im not going to post what they are as i dont want to narrow it down to those lenses.

[DRKWRX]

its one of few lenses I havnt had but Id say the 24-70mm 2.8 L wide and fairly long and with 2.8 will be decent in low light and gives nice bokeh, pretty sure a new version with I.S. is coming out soon but dunno if that will be before he leaves!

[SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS]

Echo all of Will's comments.

I have this lens, sometimes its not quite wide enough but i've become pretty good at stitching. If it were paired with a FF, it would be perfect.

I remember reading not till the end of the year for IS version of the 24-70L. The lens is heavy enoguh as it is, i don't think it would ad to much of an advantage especially with the ISO control you can get from the bodies now.

[mitchy]

no worries ross, my question has been answered....
as soon as i have money to throw around a 100-400L will be in my possession.

[Magic]

bit off topic (sorry for the hijack mitchy), but dont see the need in making a new one. but if you guys could have one lens and one lens only what would it be?? what do you see as the best all rounder? i know it depends on what you plan on using it for mainly, but if you had to pick one for all occations?


Tamron 18-270mm f3.5 if you want an 'allrounder' would be my pick. Can pick them up for under $900 atm.

[mitchy]

i've got a tamron 10-24.. and to be honest, i'm not 100% happy with it... not to say their other lens are good/bad though.
anyone else tried tamron?

[Magic]

I took these two pics with a tamron 10-24mm when I was testing the Nikon D5000. I think they're a great sub $1000 wide angle lens.

http://blaqmagicinnovations.com/files/9950_20090516-d5000comp-0036%20copy.jpg
http://blaqmagicinnovations.com/files/9986_20090516-d5000comp-0030%20copy.jpg

[SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS]

I haven't heard anything really bad other than there af is a little lazy and they're loud. If you're going to spend that sort of money go the 70-300 USM

[mitchy]

I haven't heard anything really bad other than there af is a little lazy and they're loud. If you're going to spend that sort of money go the 70-300 USM

yup... the AF motor sounds like its arguing with me every time i use it, and it is constantly refocusing differently.

[adrenalin]

24 - 105 L

Awesome lens

Perfect every day lens

[DRKWRX]

Yeah I have the 24-105mm about 4 yrs back i was trying to decide between the 24-105mm or 24-70mm as a walk about lens and chose the 24-105mm but if I was to make that choice again would have chosen the 24-70mm imo the extra 35mm isn't as usefull as F/2.8 would be, yeah you have I.S. with the 24-105mm but that doesn't help with people that move etc, also any lens with a zoom range like 18-270 is gonna be pretty shit.

[Magic]

The Tamron 18-270mm won best travel lens of 08/09 in the EISA (european imaging & sound awards)...

[DRKWRX]

guess it depends how high your standards are, its probably the best just for some happy snaps on your trip.

[Magic]

definitely. :)