Very much so and TAFKAP has a lovely selection of lenses for me to play with, plus his 5D Mk2 is at home for my use as well. Got to download and play with the surfing photos I took on Saturday at Boscombe beach weather was rubish, the waves were rubbish and the surfers were not exactly talented but got some very nice shots (mostly because they spotted me taking pics and all came off to show off in front of me ...)
Not yet got them off the camera but the interwebs died at home, got it back last night so I might get round to it this evening
The 7D is a great camera. Very good all purpose DSLR, but excellent for action/sports/nature photography where the AF, high frame rate and crop sensor make it ideal when bolted to a 70-200 2.8 or whatever. I have the 60D and have sometimes though about upgrading to the 7D to get the AF and frame rate upgrades as well as the improved weather sealing, but could never really justify the upgrade cost for marginal improvements. Plus I would miss the flip screen for some situations. Have fun with it.
Sorry to be such a rookie, but could someone give me a leyman's term of what these f numbers mean and what is signifies? The lower the number, the better? I'm currently using a Tamron (not keen on it) 70mm-300mm lens for my football photos, but I was looking for a better lens but without going mental money wise because I can't spare loads right now. To give me an idea so that I can just have a look at what's out there and what would be an improvement on what I've got to gauge how much I might need to spend, could someone give me some tips please?
The 'F' numbers (called 'F stops') represent the lens' maximum aperture - which controls both the depth of field (how much of the shot is in focus), and how much light is let in when taking a picture. Its slightly counter-intuitive as lower F numbers represent a higher maximum aperture. So an F1.8 lens can let in more light than an F3.5. This is a pretty decent explanation... http://www.all-things-photography.com/aperture.html Whats your budget and camera manufacturor? The 'go-to' telephoto when upgrading is the 70-200 f2.8, if you want a bit more reach look for a 100-400 or a Sigma 50-500 - reviews of the most common budget telephotos are here: http://improvephotography.com/1148/cheap-telephoto-lens-canon-nikon/ If you've any questions fire away...
I don't think Jez is in the market for a lens carrying the price tag of a 70-200 2.8 to be honest. The Canon 55-250 IS at around £205 is decent bang for the buck, and whilst it lacks the IQ of the L lenses isn't really all that bad. It is limited in terms of f stops, but since the primary use is outdoor sports that won't be too much of an issue. If you did want to spend a bit more Jez, the 70-200 f4 L is a top quality lens at under £600. You can get a 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) for around a grand, or a used IS mark 1 for the same money. The king of the canon crop is the newer Mark 2 IS version of the 70-200' but you're talking £1800. Dont be concerned about losing the reach of the 300 you have... The improved IQ more than compensates for that, as well as superior focussing speed and accuracy. Plus, the improved image quality means you can easily crop those extra mm in post processing.
If its just for outdoor daytime football the F4 Canon 70-200 L would be great value. Super sharp top quality lens, but it at f4 it won't let quite as much light in as the 2.8 options. I have the Sigma 20-200 f2.8, which is a better value than the Canons imo, but if you don't mind paying for the best then the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS mk 2 would be tops.
Added a 50mm f/1.4 USM to the collection over Christmas (courtesy of the wife) so now playing with: 5D Mark II 7D 50mm f/1.4 USM 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM II The 7D belongs to the wife, but so does her car and I still drive it from time to time
I seem to recall you driving me in my car once this year, you have your sticky fingers on my camera far more frequently x
For me, it's worth the trade off. It's one stop, which using the 5D2 I can usually make up in ISO where needed. The distortion is far, far better controlled than the 24-70 Mark I and so far as the Mark II is concerned, we're not even in the same price bracket. If I really do find myself in a situation the 24-105 can't handle in terms of light, I'll just stick the 50 on and zoom with my feet to be honest. Even if I owned a 24-70 (or better yet, 16-35), I'd keep the 24-105 - it's an absolutely fantastic general purpose lens with minimal distortion and great sharpness wide open.
Thanks TAFKAP, I ask because I need a replacement for my busted sigma 17-70 f2.8-4, and to compliment the 70-200L f2.8. I'd like a constant f2.8, but i'm not convinced that i'd need it.
I went and got a Nikon P7700 last week, and I'm very pleased with it. One of the big upgrades I wanted from my old Fuji Finepix EXR80 compact was the ability to take decent pics at night, especially at football. With an f2.0 - f4.0 lens I can now take pics that would have just been a grainy smudge before. The zoom (7.1x) is less than my old (10x) but because the picture quality is higher, I can crop pics and get results at least as good. And while it is considerably bigger, it's still small enough to fit into a pocket - a prerequisite that might seem insignificant to some, but I always like to travel light, and carrying round a DSLR doesn't allow that.
I have recently brought a Nikon 3200 and have brought a 55-300mm lense as well. It serves me very well, static and moving images come out really well. Night time shots are really good on it as well. One downside on this and one Im not that fussed about is the video side of it, the video constantly goes in and out of focus and thats with a tripod as well. So if you need a camera that does both then this is not for you.
