Printable View
I have a Mark iii and use a 28-135 when the 24-70 isn't enough reach and the 100-400 is just too big and to large to handle indoors. I've used the 28-300 which is a super lens but too large and heavy. I'm looking for something with a little longer reach past the 28-135 but light in weight. Any suggestion anyone?
Judy
You didn't mention your budget, but my vote would go toward the 70-200, version 2.
It has a 2.8 constant aperture, so it'll be great also indoors.
As far as weight, the 70-200 is 3.28 pounds vs 3.67 for the 28-300. So you save
a little in weight.
Right now you can get on from B&H for @$2200.
Throw in a 1.4 extender and you've increased your reach a little more.
I use the 70-200 as my 'walk around' lens.
If the v2 70-200 is to expensive, the version 1 can be had for around $1400.
Doug
Judy,
Take a look at this one 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS. Light weight and very sharp. Another is the EF 400 F5.6L AF. It depends on what you are using it for.
Bob
The price isn't the problem but the size .... 70-200 is very similar in size and weight to my 100-400 or the 28-300. I was looking for something in the 28-135 size. I've tried the Tamrom 28-300 but doesn't focus well on the Mark because it's actually made for the D series.
I'm using for indoor group and stage performers and want to stay away from a heavy and large white lens. I guess I'm looking for the Holy Grail that doesn't even exist.
Bob what is the low light focus like ? I use a lens for many shots where flash is not allowed and shot at high ISOs
Judy,Quote:
Originally Posted by Judy Becker
Greetings. While I shoot Nikon, I've shot no-flash theater/indoors performance for years. Sounds like the 70-200f/2.8 is your lens. I've shot with the Nikon equivalent and suspect that the IQ, high speed & IS will overshadow the size and weight issues over time. Fast lens equals big lens as you get into telephoto. I've since switched to a 200f/2 (now that's a big & heavy lens!).
Cheers,
-Michael-
It sounds like you want the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This is substantially lighter than the 100-400, and will take 1.4X TC in a pinch. The non-IS version is even cheaper, but indoors you'll want IS.
Judy, I never tried to use it in that type of situation but it is sharp and light. I used it outdoors for birds/mammalsQuote:
Originally Posted by Judy Becker
Bob
Thanks for all the responses .
Hi Judy. I recently bought the Canon 135mm f2.0 L for shooting youth sports in poorly lit gyms and pools. This lens is lightweight and black. I got very nice results with it hand-held. You could add a 1.4X extender for more reach.
I like Julie's suggestion of the 135/f2, if you can get close enough to the stage.
The 70-200mm f/4L IS is also excellent, but you'll have to push the ISO up around 1600, which your MkIII is up to, if you are. It's a very light, compact zoom, with super IQ. Sorry, but it's white, but you'll get over that fast.
Hi Judy. The lens i would recomend for you would be the 200-2.8 Canon prime. This is a small, black, fast and sharp. 780 $
The 70-300L is magnificent and not quite as big and heavy as the 100-400 and it has the newest IS. I love the lens, as it's quite versatile and the images look great throughout the range, particularly at 300mm.
I also agree with Brian above - the 200mm f2.8 is wonderful, and quite light. It handles the 1.4 teleconverter very well too, which would give you a 280mm f4. Another note about the 200mm f2.8 - it delivers some gorgeous bokeh, if that's your cup of tea...
