Lenses

[leopuppy04]

I have a canon 450D and am looking at upgrading my telephoto lens to an L series. I have an amazing offer from a friend and can get the 70-200 f/4.0 USM for $550. Now until this point, while I've toyed wiht the idea to upgrade the telephoto lens, I've never really looked into it. So I guess my main question is:

What does everyone prefer? the 70-200 f/4.0 USM or the 70-200 f/2.8 USM?

Recommendations?

Other than weight, what are the main differences I would find?

What would make you pay almost double to go for the lower f stop?

What do I shoot?

Mostly dogs and dog agility. 90% of the time outdoors, but in June we have the agility nationals which is solely indoors, so I want to have something versatile enough that would allow me to shoot in such an area. I say this because we occasionally show inside too :).

Is it worth the extra $$ and weight?

Lastly, I'm also quite interested in getting either a fisheye or a really wide angle lens. I guess I've not really looked into it before, but I'm curious about how versatile it is and what sort of photography you would use it for? My cousing has shown me a few shots he has taken with these types of lenses and they are truly amazing. Good focus on his subject (often his kids) with a great amount of background in it too. Is it the type of lens you would use often or hardly at all? I am open to any suggestions that you may have as to what would be a good lens(es) to look at? I think he recommended the 10-22 but I can't remember the specifications (plus he has a Nikon, so not sure what the Canon equiv. is?!)

Thanks in advance!

Edited February 10, 2012 by leopuppy04

[kja]

The Canon 70-200 4.0 is a very good lens and $550 isn't a bad price (they are about $670+ new). When you jump to the 2.8 version you're looking at over $1000. Only you can decide if the extra stop is worth it. If you do a massive amount in low light and absolutely must have the shot, then it's worth it (and if that's the case then you'll actually want the IS II version which is over $2000).

The 10-22 is also a stellar lens. I don't use mine nearly enough. There are a few options, all excellent and all with their own strengths:

- Canon 10-22: fabulous lens. most expensive ($756ish). handles flare very well.

- Sigma 10-20: great lens. less expensive($429ish). nothing wrong with this lens at all and fabulous value for money.

- Tokina 11-16: fabulous lens. mid range price($699ish). wider than the above. max aperture 2.8 so best choice for low light.

If you want a fisheye, which is a limited use specialty lens that does distort your subject, the Tokina 10-17 is awesome. ($699ish)

Personally, I'd probably go to the Sigma 10-20 looking at your post.

[leopuppy04]

thanks for that kja.

At the moment I'm thinking I go with my friends 70-200 and when I want to update I can get pretty much what I paid for this one to upgrade.

What is the different between the fisheye and the wide angle in terms of effects in the photo? i only ask because i know that the wide angle lenses can also distort slightly at the edges?

[kja]

Hop over to POTN and look thru the archives of the lenses you are considering to see what each does :)