28-135mm & 75-300mm both IS USM....

[cdifoto]

28-135mm & 75-300mm both IS USM....I'm very very close to purchasing both of these lenses together. Not as a kit but just at the same time. I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on these lenses and can tell me whether they'll give me excellent, good, fair, or poor results and why.

Also...not to sound snide or anything...but what's so great about the L series? What makes the prices jump so high?

[jamison55]

This thread might help answer two of your questions: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9582

In it I compare the Canon 75-300 IS to a cheapo Sigma 55-200 and a Canon 80-200L. My 2nd shooter uses the 75-300, and it produces very nice, sharp, contrasty photos with great colors. I used another second shooter at a wedding a few weeks ago who used the kit you are considering with great results (although the wedding was in bright daylight, which is the optimal condition for any lens).

From what I have seen and heard both are reasonably well built, the IS is very helpful when the light starts to get low and you have to handhold, and they both start a little soft at wide apertures, but sharpen up when stopped down a bit.

The "L" series represents a big step up in image quality and build quality. I can usually pick out an image from an "L" lens just by looking at it. They produce images that "pop" with beautiful, deeply saturated colors and contrast, and great bokeh. They are usually built of solid steel. I currently own two of them (the 80-200 f2.8 and the 28-70 2.8), and am consistently amazed with the out of camera quality of the images.

[cdifoto]

Thanks for that. Samples help immensely.

I wish I could afford some L series lenses though...my eyes were immediately drawn to the L photo in your samples at the wide aperture row. I'd like to get shots that *pop* out at you like that (someday).

Based on those samples, I just hope I don't need to do a lot at f/4 on the 75-300 and MAYBE the 28-135mm will perform a bit better on that end and be al I need as far as focal length goes.

I don't currently have a set purpose or type of photography, so I can't readily define my needs. At this point I want to know where to go from having the kit lens and the 50mm f/1.8 to have a more comprehensive set of lenses for in my case. I'd like to keep the "Dammit"s to a minimum. lol.

Here's a question though. As far as L series goes...what focal length would be optimal for shooting Big Rig trucks (ie 18 wheelers) from 300 feet to as close as 75 feet while moving at about 35mph? I'm not sure if you're familiar with the ATPA (American Tractor Puller's Assocation) or not, but it has a fairly new subset of 18 wheelers that pull a huge sled full of weights and the goal is to get to the 300 feet mark. I'm looking to pitch a photography gig to them and am not QUITE sure which lens would be optimal. Lighting conditions vary...from daylight into the nighttime, with stadium lights turned on around dusk.

[jamison55]

Here's a question though. As far as L series goes...what focal length would be optimal for shooting Big Rig trucks (ie 18 wheelers) from 300 feet to as close as 75 feet while moving at about 35mph? I'm not sure if you're familiar with the ATPA (American Tractor Puller's Assocation) or not, but it has a fairly new subset of 18 wheelers that pull a huge sled full of weights and the goal is to get to the 300 feet mark. I'm looking to pitch a photography gig to them and am not QUITE sure which lens would be optimal. Lighting conditions vary...from daylight into the nighttime, with stadium lights turned on around dusk.

If I were shooting the conditions you describe handheld, I'd optimally want the 70-200 f2.8L IS (You can buy one for about $1600.00 - Ouch!). If you invest in a monopod, you might be able to get away with a 70-200L non IS (<$1000 used), or even a 70-200 f4L (about $550 used), though the latter might be pushing it in the dusk. Depending upon your budget, you might be right on track to buy the 75-300 IS as it is only 1/2 the price of the non-IS L, is only one stop slower when zoomed than the f4L, and gives you 100mm more reach (which will come in handy when the trucks are 300 feet away).

If you want to drool a little, here's the PBase gallery for the 70-200 f2.8L IS: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_28is

[George Riehm]

If you have a professional camera store in your area you might want to try renting some of the lenses first.

Locally here in the Phoenix area we have Tempe Camera Repair and they rent most of the "better" lenses from the OEM manufacturers (and even a few Tamrons, but unfortunately no Sigma's).

This weekend I am going to give the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR a run. It is similar to the Canon lens mentioned by Jamison at about the same cost ($1600). Rental charge is all of $38 for the weekend.

Over the next couple of months my plan is to rent several of the higher end lenses that I am thinking about buying, just to make sure that they are what I'm looking for. It should save me a lot of hassel down the road.

[Clyde]

Over the next couple of months my plan is to rent several of the higher end lenses that I am thinking about buying, just to make sure that they are what I'm looking for. It should save me a lot of hassel down the road.

Yeah, taking a test drive is a great idea. Remember, about the trouble it will save you:

hassel=blad!

Clyde

[cdifoto]

lol@ hassel-blad. :D

As far as price goes...I'm wishing/hoping/praying/dreaming that it might not be an issue. I'm going to buy the two IS lenses on my own but I think I *might* be able to get Canon and/or the ATPA to provide the lenses as a sponsorship type deal. The photo gig I'm going to pitch to them would be to their own benefit...to make them a crapload of $$ at each event. If I can convince them of the potential to rake in about 10K each night, I might be able to get them to buy me the L series lens(es) I need as well. heh.

In the meantime I'll try to see how I can do with the two I'm purchasing for my own ventures.

Thanks all for your advice. I look forward to posting here often...hopefully someday to be the advice giver rather than the advice seeker!