Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 31, 2007, 3:18 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Default

Hello, I'm going to get a 400D and was wondering if this lens is any good

or should I go with a more expensive model. Thanks
woodsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 31, 2007, 3:31 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,598
Default

Go with the more expensive model.

The 75-300 Canon is a bit of a dog.

You'd be better off with the Sigma 70-300 APO.

But if you can afford the new Canon 70-300 then go for that one, it's a very nice lens.

A good place to compare lenses:

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2007, 6:16 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,342
Default

If you can afford it the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX is in a class of it's own :idea:

-> It all depends on what you want to do with the lenses in this range - If all you need is a general purpose "walk-around" then I would also recommend the Canon 70-300; However, if you are into wildlife then you might want the best 300mm optic (and construction) around - This zoom is as sharp as a prime and might save you some $ in the future when you'll realize that a 400mm minimum is really what is needed for birding. When this 100-300 f/4 EX Sigma is coupled to a 1.4x teleconverter for example (i.e. an effective focal lenght of 420mm) it can put some Canon 400mm L zoom to shame...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2007, 11:36 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Default

Thank you for your replies they where very helpful.
woodsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2007, 4:28 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 28
Default

I had the lens you inquired about and it was a total dog. I replaced it with the Canon 70-300 IS because my filters I had for the other lens would fit. The differece in these lenses is like night and day. The 70-300 is almost L glass in quality and the IS is a remarkable plus. You can get it from places like BH for around the mid 500's. The Sigma somebody mentioned has good glass, but not IS and believe me once you've used a lens that stabilizes you'll never use a non stabilized lens again. Check out the reviews for this lens at fredmiranda.com and photozone.de. By comparison, the 75-300 rated a 5.5, which is horrible, the 70-300 IS a 8.9, whereas comparable L glass got between 9 and 9.1. This lens is a real bargain!

There is a new DO version of this lens that costs more than twice as much, but doesn't come out any better in reviews.
Jon_Doh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2007, 7:51 PM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Jon_Doh wrote:
Quote:
I had the lens you inquired about and it was a total dog. I replaced it with the Canon 70-300 IS because my filters I had for the other lens would fit. The differece in these lenses is like night and day. The 70-300 is almost L glass in quality and the IS is a remarkable plus. You can get it from places like BH for around the mid 500's. The Sigma somebody mentioned has good glass, but not IS and believe me once you've used a lens that stabilizes you'll never use a non stabilized lens again. Check out the reviews for this lens at fredmiranda.com and photozone.de. By comparison, the 75-300 rated a 5.5, which is horrible, the 70-300 IS a 8.9, whereas comparable L glass got between 9 and 9.1. This lens is a real bargain!
If we are taking a comparison of the review on photozone.de then the Sigma 100-300mm f4 gets a 9.5 and I would have to agree with NHL's post earlier that the Sigma is in a class of its own. The 100-300mm f4 is a sharper lens than my Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 which costs over twice as much but for me f2.8 is essential. Moving on withthe IS front I disagree that once you have had it you will never go back. Before switching to Canon I had a Konica Minolta 5D which had in body IS so all lenses could be stabilised however I don't own any glass for my Canon 30D that has IS. I have used the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS a lot as a good friend owns one however the IS almost always switched off as it was not bringing anything to the party for the sort of shooting that I do.

That brings me onto the most important question that will help you make the right decision, what do you want the lens for. If it is general walk around telephoto zoom then Canon as it is lighter, if you are looking for higher quality to allow you to bird or shoot sport then look at the Sigma. The latter is quite a bit heavier but this is due to the higher build quality and the fact that it is a constant f4 making it brighter at 300mm.

Before people get up in arms with me saying I don't get any benefit from IS, this is because I shoot sports over 90% of the time so the IS is of little use as shutter speeds are generally high so IS does nothing.

Mark
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2007, 11:41 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,342
Default

Mark1616 wrote:
Quote:
Before people get up in arms with me saying I don't get any benefit from IS, this is because I shoot sports over 90% of the time so the IS is of little use as shutter speeds are generally high so IS does nothing...
Not only IS does nothing but in my experiences it interferes as well...
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...721498#p721498


Here's how they stack up: http://photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

@ 300mm
Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX MTF's
300mm f/4 f/5.6 f/8 f/11
Center 1919 1951 1827 1702
Border 1715 1791 1777 1659
Canon 70-300 f/5.6 IS MTF's
300mm f/5.6 f/8 f/11
Center 1746 1888 1746
Border 1695 1741 1685
-> The Sigma EX is a lot sharper @ wide open

... and when @ 400mm
Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX MTF's (with 1.4x)
420mm f/5.6 f/8 f/11
Center 1655 1750 1631
Border 1507 1587 1510
Canon 100-400 f/5.6 L IS MTF's
400mm f/5.6 f/8 f/11
Center 1488 1549 1508
Border 1489 1539 1512
-> In fact you're saving yourself from upgrading to an L zoom if you learn to live without IS! :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2007, 12:36 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Default

Thanks Guys,

I think the 70-300 IS wins out , for the price and IQ for what I want it for.

Thanks for the info it helped alot. :-)
woodsman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:22 PM.