Which Lens?

[FallingHorse]

I am tossing up whether to purchase the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens or go for the 100-400mm.

I mostly like to shoot sporting events (particulalrly equine sports) and ocassionly birds, wildlife etc. I was thinking that the 70 - 200 might be more practical for everyday stuff and a perhaps use a teleconvertor for the ocassional bird shot but I did hear somewhere that if you're considering a teleconvertor then you should go for the bigger glass to begin with.

At the moment - I am only using an entry level EOS 1000D which I but I plan on upgrading to the 7D.

[kiwi]

I guess a few questions might be

a) do you ever need 2.8 ?
b) do you get close enough to equine with a 200mm (assumingyou have a 1.6 crop with 7d)

a 1.4 or 1.7 TC is usually quite good on a 2.8 and will with the 1.6 crop be OK for the odd bird shot Id say

100-400 is an appealing lens too

So, all in all , I have no opinion, good eh !!

[Mr Scrofulous]

My wife has been shoooting horses for some years. The 70-200 is the right lens for that.
You need f2.8, both to blur the often crap backgrounds of open arenas, and for anything even vaguely undercover.
The large Olympic arena at Horsely PArk, for example, has about teh worst possible lighting conditions for good photography you can imagine, and without 2.8, just forget about even trying.
A typical background at a horse show will include rubbish bins, flaots, peeing dogs, random people doign random things etc. Unless you can blur them out with a shallow DOF, you won't get images you want to keep. Because the horse is moving, it's very difficult to compose them out too.
An example recently at a big Arab show, great shot spoiled by the marshall blowing his nose in the background. It's still usable, cos he is blurred out (she was using 200 f2.0), but not a cover shot.

[kiwi]

Id be cloning the marshall out. easy peasy

[FallingHorse]

Thanks Mr Scrofulous - my main use will be equestrian events. I am lucky that all our events are held in the dry season so the light is usually good to blindingly bright! You are right about the rubbish in the backgrounds at such events :-)
I find that the majority of my horse photo are taken between 100 -200mm.
Can anyone tell me if I can still use Autofocus with the 1.4 or 1.7TC?

[kiwi]

certianly, check out the Kenko 1.4Pro TC also, good value and indistinguishable IQ

[FallingHorse]

Thanks Kiwi - I will certainly do that. I'm not sure what IQ stands for - some sort of lens abberation?
PS: I love the your name is Kiwi and your forum rank is 'permanent resident' ... got a chuckle out of that!

[kiwi]

Image Quality

[Mr Scrofulous]

Thanks Mr Scrofulous - my main use will be equestrian events. I am lucky that all our events are held in the dry season so the light is usually good to blindingly bright! You are right about the rubbish in the backgrounds at such events :-)
I find that the majority of my horse photo are taken between 100 -200mm.
Can anyone tell me if I can still use Autofocus with the 1.4 or 1.7TC?

Yes, the 70-200 f2.8 will retain AF with both the 1.4 and 2x extenders.
My wife finds that she is mostly at 200mm when shooting halter horses, so it is plenty.
Shooting dressage or jumping is much easier and you might need shorted focal lengths there, as the horses movement is much more predictable and you can often be closer to the action. Like shooting fish in a barrel compared to halter horses at liberty.

As for cloning stuff out Kiwi , sure it can be done, BUT, very labour intensive, and my wife's reputation is built on her refusal to alter photos as well as the quality of her work.
If you had any idea how much perfidy there is in the horse world, you might apprecitate how valuable a reputation for honesty is, and why she will never do anything to tarnish that.

[kiwi]

Interesting discussion about cloning. Would need to see the original photo. It's a big no-no for editorial work but as "art" or for selling prints to the riders I dont have a problem with it. Done well no-one would know and if it's a prize winning photo, so be it. Im not suggesting bothering normally

[FallingHorse]

Thanks again for the info - you guys are most helpful :-)

[Mr Scrofulous]

Interesting discussion about cloning. Would need to see the original photo. It's a big no-no for editorial work but as "art" or for selling prints to the riders I dont have a problem with it. Done well no-one would know and if it's a prize winning photo, so be it. Im not suggesting bothering normally

There are a lot of things to consider and we could talk about it for hours.
In the case of the nose-blowing marshall, he is easy to clone out, cos he is already very blurry due to the f2.0. At f5.6, he would be sharply enough in, to be a lot more work, with say some fence railings or brickwork in the background. Get a single one of those lines wrong and everyone will cast doubt about the validity of the whle photo. Given that it's a beauty and conformation shot of the horse, no-one will believe that is what he actually looks like. I have seen this happen many times and I have seen lots of VERY dodgy pics of very expensive horses altered to make them look very different to what they are in real life.
My wife has also done a ton of post-production work for people, only to have them renege on buying too, so now we don't bother. A lot of her pics get used in advertising and she's had a few covers as well, so accuracy is needed.
Turns out that it's a lot easier to just get the shot right at shutter click, even though that's harder to do. The right lens is a good place to start.

[kiwi]

hace you a link to your wife's work, id be interested to see it

[Mr Scrofulous]

hace you a link to your wife's work, id be interested to see it

She posts here and put stuff up at times.
I'd prefer her to put up any links, otherwise I'm stepping on her toes.
Her nick is Satine. She has a thread in the domestic animal section at present though if you want to look at that. She will probably look at this thread too.
I've been carrying the bag around horse stuff for her for a few years, and seen some ugly fall-out hit other people over altered photos, which is maybe why my opinions seem strong.
Horse people, well, they are kinda different. Let's just say that honesty is pretty much optional.

[kiwi]

ahh yes, she does nice work

[Satine]

Hi Kiwi,

As my husband said, definately the 70-200mm f2.8 and if you can get the new mk II version I think you'd be over the moon. I don't think you'll need a teleconverter but if you do i'd go the 1.4x as you would only need a little more reach and it won't degrade your image quality too much.

The 100-400mm lens is really a great outdoor lens and the zoom range would work well if you were taking photo's of horses out in a reasonable size paddock but the 70-200mm is everone's main lens in the horse arena's. I owned the 100-400mm lens but sold it as I wasn't using it, the 70-200mm was always on the camera, oh...and we wanted to go on a ski holiday so the lens helped to fund that!!

What camera body are you using?

[FallingHorse]

Hi Satine - I have an entry level 1000D. I didn't want to cut corners with the lens quality although it's only an entry level body as I plan on upgrading the body at a later date, wont have to do it with my lenses. What is the difference between the Mk I and Mk II? Is it worth the extra 1K?

[FallingHorse]

Horse people, well, they are kinda different. Let's just say that honesty is pretty much optional.

I beg to differ :-) I don't consider myself a dishonest person. Far from it - especially since my own line of work depends enormously on my own integrity. It would be much fairer to say that some people are dishonest - regardless of their interests ans hobbies :-)

[etherial]

I know I'm a bit late to this thread, but I would also add +1 for the 70-200 F2.8. You can add a teleconverter if you need that extra reach and it takes it to an F4 which is better than the 100-400 which is F4.5 at the short end.

You will also find the F2.8 of much more use when covering indoor events.

Another thing to consider is the 100-400 lens is a push-pull zoom operation which can take a bit of getting used to. Personally I don't like them at all.

[SirNobicus]

I'm also going to add a +1 for the 70-200. have had the non-IS version and love it too bits. the 2.8 makes lower light shooting so much easier.

there is such a large whooshing sound every time that the lens is extended and compressed. I know they are meant to be well sealed but I'd personally be quite concerned about dust getting in over time.