Best long lenses for canon eos 1d Mark II

[stewie]

hey guys. Im about to purchase to canon eos 1d Mark II.

Firstly I'd love to know is there any difference between the Mark II model and the Mark II N model? Im a bit confused.
Im into surf photography and need a long range lens.

Im just buying the body for now but wondering what lens I should be looking at getting.

The sigma APO 500mm f4.5 lens looks like a really good long lens for land sports action photography, but I dont have the money, but i definately want something that will be 500mm.
My long lens budget is about 1200?
Are there any cheaper alternatives that will get the job done with the quality being sufficient for surf magazine prints?

Any advice would be fantastic. I dont really know what i should be looking at getting.

thanks Heaps Stewie

[MTalley]

hey guys. Im about to purchase to canon eos 1d Mark II.

Firstly I'd love to know is there any difference between the Mark II model and the Mark II N model? Im a bit confused.

The Mark II is a 16.7 Megapixel camera, the II n is 8.2. Burst rate on the II n is the strong point, and probably something to consider for sports/action photography. 8 MP should be sufficient for print. In your situation, I'd choose the II n.

Per the lens, I've seen some pretty good reviews on the Sigma 50-500 EX DG HSM f/4-6.3 lens. About the best fit for your budget, if you are stuck on needing 500mm. You'll be shooting at f/6.3, but outside in the sun, shutter speed shouldn't be an issue. If it were me, and I thought I could get away with 400mm, I'd look at the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L. Both lenses are in the $1k ballpark.

[Jonathan Wienke]

The Mark II is a 16.7 Megapixel camera, the II n is 8.2. Burst rate on the II n is the strong point, and probably something to consider for sports/action photography. 8 MP should be sufficient for print. In your situation, I'd choose the II n.

You're confusing the 1Ds Mark II and the 1D Mark II. The only real difference between the 1D-MKII and 1D-MkIIn is the LCD on the back. Both are 1.3x crop, 8.2MP, and 8.5FPS, and there's no real difference between their output in terms of resolution or image quality.
The 1Ds series is full-frame, the original is 11MP, 3FPS, and the Mark II is 16.7MP, 4 FPS. These cameras are intended more for high resolution than high speed capture.

To the OP:
The 1D-MkII non-N model is probably a better deal if you can find a good used one; if you're buying new, the N model is all you're likely to find. $1200 is not realistic for a 500mm lens that is going to be used for pro work; at that price range, you'll be lucky to find a coke bottle with a fast enough aperture for your needs. You'll need to spend $3000-4000 to get something you'll want to keep and will meet your needs. If you spend less, you'll probably end up selling the lens at a loss and forking out the extra money anyway; you'll be cheaper off buying right the first time.

[situgrrl]

You'd be better off with a crop-frame body as you need all of the length you can get and the 1.6x crop factor will help you a lot.  8mp from the 30D is fine for publication.

[mahleu]

What about the canon 100-400L IS or the sigma 80-400OS? If you need a little more reach you can use  1.4x convertor

[X-Re]

I spoke at length w/ a guy who did surf photography for a living at one point (I bought an EOS-3 from him, as well). He told me that he pretty much exclusively used the 600/4 on that camera (full frame 35mm). The equivalent of that for a 1.3x crop factor body would be a 460mm lens (so, either a 400mm or a 500mm), and for a 1.6x crop factor body, a 375mm lens (so, a 400mm).

The 1DMkII(n) is a nice camera, for sure - I wonder if a 20D/30D might get the job done for you, and free up the cash for the glass you need (at least, to get you started)?? That gives you more options to get out there....

I don't have any experience w/ the 100-400+TC combo - seems like it might end up awful slow on the focus side of things for surf (they can cut and move pretty quickly, and you don't often have a lot of time to get on a surfer, get focused, and snap frames)...?

[Paul Sumi]

I don't have any experience w/ the 100-400+TC combo - seems like it might end up awful slow on the focus side of things for surf (they can cut and move pretty quickly, and you don't often have a lot of time to get on a surfer, get focused, and snap frames)...?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have casually shot surfing here in southern California with my 1D Mk2 and borrowed Canon 100-400 zoom and Canon 500 f/4 (with/without TC).  

With the 100-400 you will almost always be operating at the long end of the zoom range.  Which begs the question of getting Canon's 400 f/5.6 if cost is a factor.  The 400 doesn't have IS, though, which may be a problem.

The 100-400 is "okay" but don't expect to get any tight, frame-filling shots, especially if the action is happening far off-shore.  Autofocus is a little slow even with the 1d Mk2 and I'd expect it to be slower with a TC.

The 500 f/4 is a real gem (and just as costly), and I think the minimum focal length for serious surf photography.  A TC is a necessity and adds flexibility.

Paul

[stewie]

thanks heaps fellas.
I think i will save up some cash before buying a lens.

One more thing. I am selling my EOS350d, with a tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3, camera bag and some filters. Its about a year old and the body has a few scratches but nothing serious.
What price should i be looking at getting.
cheers stew

[stever]

i'd really recommend the 30D with 400 f5.6  - 5fps, good sized buffer, and low noise even at 400 and 800 ISO.  at the shutter speeds you'll be using, lack of IS is not going to be significant, although a monopod is probably a good idea if you use a 1.4x (which should still meet your quality requirements.

i've taken  casual surf shots with my 20D and 100-400 and found it to be barely long enough.  i think with the 1.4x the quality will be marginal (at best) for your needs.  and the 400 f5.6 will be noticeably sharper

other lens possibilities

-Tamron 200-500 is about as sharp at 400 as the 100-400 and about as sharp at 500 as the 100-400 +1.4x but it's not as contrasty (and i have one like new for sale)

-400 f4 DO (+1.4x)

- 300 f2.8 + 1.4x and 2x extenders - great lens but not hand - holdable   -- the old non-IS version is just as sharp if you're lucky enough to find one

- 500 f4 - definitely not hand-holdable and may be too long on a crop frame camera  - the old 500 f4.5 is also a fine lens

this is the second thread on which the Sigma 50-500 has been mentioned -- i've never seen any credible "good reports" on this lens and believe it is firmly in the coke bottle category

[MTalley]

You're confusing the 1Ds Mark II and the 1D Mark II.

You are exactly right. That was just a test.  

But seriously, I'm always getting them confused - too many darn letters.

[macgyver]

Remember that the 30D can't autofocus if the len's max aperature is less than 5.6.  IE, you couldn't get a 400 5.6 or 100-400 and use the 1.4 converter and still have auto focus.

[stever]

the 400 5.6 should autofocus with a 1.4x (as does the 100-400, although not as fast as you'd like) with the last 3 pins taped - using some of the aftermarket extenders may not require this -- i'd suggest a Kenko Pro instead of Canon for general flexibility