Ski/MTB lens

[Aenigma]

I already have a 17-70mm wide angle, and now I'm looking for something to cover the longer end. I shoot a lot of skiing in the winter (what this will primarily be used for) and would like to start shooting MTB, fly fishing, animals, etc more. Oh yeah, the body is an XTi (if that matters) and my budget is around $500...more or less. Any recommendations?

[dipstik]

The 70-200 f/4 will probably be what most people recommend: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...CA702004LEF&Q=

Because of the crop factor on the XTi body, the effective focal length will be ~100-300mm, which is quite versatile. Check out www.KEH.com for used copies of that lens for an even better deal.

Alternatively, you could pick up the prime 200 f/2.8 lens for around $600 or less used: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_2_8L.html

You will learn to love the 2.8, however, on the XTi body the focal length will be fixed at ~300mm, and that can sometimes be a little on the long side.

Go with the 70-200!


edit: see here for a comprehensive look at the Canon lineup.: http://www.the-digital-picture.com

[Aenigma]

The 70-200 f/4 sounds like it might be the ticket, but would this limit me to only shooting on days with relatively good light? I love taking pictures when it's bluebird, but let's face it--things aren't always that way.

[altabird92]

^^ then get the sigma 70-200 2.8

[dipstik]

The 70-200 f/4 sounds like it might be the ticket, but would this limit me to only shooting on days with relatively good light? I love taking pictures when it's bluebird, but let's face it--things aren't always that way.

It's hard to make generalizations about this kind of stuff, but f/4 will likely only limit you if you want to shoot indoors or at night under artificial lighting. Even then, bumping the ISO up to 1600 or 3200 will get you by in all but the worst of situations. I don't know much about shooting skiing or MTB, but for under $600, the 70-200 f/4 has got to be the best sports lens you can get.

[pointedem]

Nikkor 80-200 2.8D

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

Sharp as shit, and can be had used for less then half of the 70-200. This lens is a bang for the buck.

[Aenigma]

That looks sweet, but $915 is a little too far over my budget!

[hop]

Not to mention it's going to be hard to put a Nikon lens on a Canon body.

[Aenigma]

That crossed my mind as well. I'll never forget how ecstatic I was two days before a trip to the desert when my last lens arrived--and they had shipped me one for Nikon on accident.

[Keegan]

For the money, definitely the 70-200 F4 like others have said. If you're looking for a cheaper option in the meantime until you really make the jump to a Canon 2.8, maybe consider the EF-s 55-200?

[Aenigma]

Trigger=pulled. 70-200mm f/4 USM is on its way!

[forrestbro]

Canon announced a new EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS Lens a couple of days ago. Lists for $699.

[dipstik]

Congrats! Happy shooting, and don't forget to post up some results.

[altabird92]

im looking for a similar lens, with a slightly bigger budget
70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 2.8 NON is?

[Pura Vida]

im looking for a similar lens, with a slightly bigger budget
70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 2.8 NON is?

How big of a factor is weight to you? The 2.8 is signifcantly heavier. Ideally it would be nice to have both of course , but if you are planning to use it mostly for shooting sports, outdoors, in daylight can't really go wrong with the f4 IS. Lugging around the weight of the 2.8 can get old fast, especially on days you don't need it.

[pointedem]

Not to mention it's going to be hard to put a Nikon lens on a Canon body.

Maybe I should read first, then post.

[Keegan]

Trigger=pulled. 70-200mm f/4 USM is on its way!

Congrats! You won't be disappointed.