Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Canon EOS dSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-eos-dslr-41/)
-   -   10D and best zoom lenses? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-eos-dslr-41/10d-best-zoom-lenses-17050/)

Jeff Mirkin Dec 5, 2003 12:44 PM

10D and best zoom lenses?
 
I'm going to buy a dslr STRICTLY for outdoor action shots of my kids high school football, baseball and lacrosse games. I have a Minolta 7i that does a great job but I want a bigger telephoto capability. I was looking at the 300D but now feel that the 10D will be a better choice. QUESTION(S): Will the best quality prints come from a Canon lens on a Canon body? How are Sigma lenses on the 10D body? I see that Sigma has a small, lightweight 28-200mm zoom lens for $189. It sounds perfect for my needs. Does anyone know the quality of this lens?

Thanks,

Jeff

UniSonBBS Dec 5, 2003 4:40 PM

Hello,

With what you plan to do with this camera is totally acceptable. Either camera will perform without a problem. However, to get exactly what you want, its all gonna depend on your lens you choose. Sports and fast action shots require some fast shutter speeds. If you want very crisp photographs "Frozen" of say a soccer game. Your gonna want a large f-stop (ie: 2.8 ). If you start to touch the f/5.6 area you will be fine on a nice sunny day. But its all depending on how important it is to make these images as frozen as possible.

On the other hand, with lenses, you pretty much always get what you pay for (Other then the 50mm f/1.8 from Canon thats always out of stock :cry: Only like $80 bucks). I would try out a Sigma EX lens or unless you got the money, shoot for a Canon L Series. They have a nice 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.

But if it was me, I guess I'd be cheap and do the following.

Buy a Canon 75-300mm USM IS Lens f/4.0-5.6
Use a faster ISO/Film Speed (Say 400) 10D does fine at this speed.
And if it had too much grain then my liking. I would use NeatImage.

Maybe that helped?
As Ive seen all over the place.

85% Photographer
15% Camera (But a nice lens helps... :wink: )

djb Dec 5, 2003 5:14 PM

if you want to gobig bucks the sigma 120-300 f/2.8 sounds really nice. if and when i get a 10d that will be one of my primary choices.
the sigma goes for about $1900. (hey, i said big bucks).

dennis

Jeff Mirkin Dec 5, 2003 6:46 PM

Dennis and Russel thanks for your input.

I'm trying to stay away from the big, heavy telephoto lenses, and I'm NOT spending $1,900 for a lens! I'm looking for more than my 7i's 200mm top end. A lens that tops out at 200mm is really equivalent to 320mm when you consider the digital 1.6 multiplier effect... correct? That's why the Sigma 28-200mm at $189 looks so good. I'm just not sure about the quality. I know that the 10D plus telephoto lens will be bigger than my 7i but I still would like to keep it as 'portable' as possible.

With action shots I use shutter priority and like 1/500 or faster, but the action stops just fine at 1/350. Even though I'd love a 2.8 lens it seems that, if iso 400 isn't grainy, I should have no problems, even with a slower lens. I get the impression that I don't need to stick with a Canon lens to get good performance?

Jeff

Mathilde uP Dec 5, 2003 6:50 PM

If ultra crisp quality is the goal; don't buy a zoom lens, go for a fixed like a 300mm lens (300mm x 1.6 =480 mm)
Keep the Minotla for nearby shots (yes work with two cameras)

However a good zoom lens should also do a great job. Look around for some user /epinion reviews of different brand lenses. Entry level Sigma lenses seem to be perfect for being lightweigth and low cost. Sometimes the low entry Tamron lenses perform a bit better.
As said before the glass is really what will make the difference, indepentent if you decide on 10D or 300 D.

eric s Dec 6, 2003 12:08 AM

Other than differing amounts of noise in the picture, you should be able to do a lot of testing with the equipment you already have and get similar results as with a 300D or 10D.

Take you Minolta, set it to max zoom, ISO 400 and take some pictures on a reasonable afternoon. Any where outdoors with similar lighting to when your kids play soccer. See what shutter speed you get with what fstop. If f5.6 gives you 1/350, then it might work (fits your criteria.) For the test, it doesn't matter that it isn't the same equipment.

As to that lens. UniSonBBS is right, you get what you pay for. Yes, you do pay a slight premium for the OEM name (Canon/Nikon) but they also make better lenses (in general) than Sigma or Tamron. Better means many things. Better sharpness, better coatings on the lenses, less flare or chromatic aboration, less color fringing. There are many ways to make a bad lens.

Lets take the lens you mention, which I assume is this one:
Sigma 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 Compact Aspherical Hyperzoom AutoFocus Macro Lens with Hood for Canon EOS Cameras

that costs $189 and compare it to this one:
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX APO HSM Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens with Hood & Case for Canon EOS Cameras

that costs $699. Obviously, this isn't a fair comparison.

The obvious answer is that it has less zoom range, but it's easier to make better quality shorter zooms than longer zooms. It also has a better fstop, making it handy on the cloudy days. If the kids play under lights, this will be even more important because you'll need the best fstop you can get under lights (a high ISO can save you some here.)

But there are other things. Lets look at a lens review site and see the ratings
http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html

The sigma 28-200 is the second worst lens in their "super zoom" catagory. They described this way:
Perf. w/open (wide): poor (*)
Perf. w/open (long): poor (*)
Perf. s/down (wide): poor (*)
Perf. s/down (long): poor (*)
Vign. (wide): heavy(**)
Vign. (long): significant (w/o) (***-)
Dist. (wide): critical (*)
Dist. (long): heavy distortions (**)
Color: slightly cool
Flare: quite heavy (**-)
Optical Verdict: very poor (0.96)
AF Speed: very slow (*)
Build Quality: bad (*)
No. Inputs: 20

So this information was gathered from 20 people and this is the average information about this lens. The number of *'s is a star rating out of 5, with - & + being slightly better or worse than the exact figure. Looks like the best thing that can be said about it is the price and that it doesn't suffer a lot from Vignetting on the long end (vign (long).) Not exactly a great lens. Might be good enough for you, I don't know where your standards lie. I don't have kids and I live very modestly (frugally) so I can afford a more expensive lens... so I wouldn't get that one. But as a value for money proposition, the 70-200 is something I would consider. It's in the "tele Zooms xx-200mm" catagory at # 6. Here is its information:
Perf. w/open (wide): good (***+)
Perf. w/open (long): good (***+)
Perf. s/down (wide): very good (****)
Perf. s/down (long): very good (****)
Vign. (wide): little vignetting (w/o) (****+)
Vign. (long): little vignetting (w/o) (****+)
Dist. (wide): little distortions (****)
Dist. (long): little distortions (****)
Color: neutral
Flare: some flare (***+)
Optical Verdict: very good (4.34)
AF Speed: Ok (***+)
Build Quality: very good
No. Inputs: 85

Considering the best lens they list is the Canon f2.8 L costs $1,000 more and the only benefit to me would be a bit of optical improvement (rates a 4.78 ) and better AF speed (extremely fast (*****)) I don't believe it's worth that much money to me.

Also another note. Depending on the age of your kids, they will be playing on very large fields. I played soccer for 10+ years on everything up to Olympic sized fields. 200mm, even with the 1.6x crop, is not going to be long enough for the big fields. The minolta D7 has a 28mm - 200mm lens. Imaging the kids being 50% larger in the picture. That is what you'll get compared to what you have now. If that's good enough, then don't get something larger (larger = more money.) But as they get older they will play on larger fields and you will eventually need to get more reach (either through bigger lenses or a tele converter.)

But this is the reality. Only you can say what lens quality is "good enough" for you, taking into account how much you are willing to spend. Many large camera stores let you rent a lens (and apply a portion towards the cost of buying.) So rent the 28-200 and see how it works. Or buy it and return it (if they have a good return policy.)

Eric

-jb Dec 9, 2003 1:03 AM

Re: 10D and best zoom lenses?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Mirkin
I'm going to buy a dslr STRICTLY for outdoor action shots of my kids high school football, baseball and lacrosse games.

If you find yourself constantly using the "long" end of your zoom, you might want to conside a 200mm prime lens. On a 10D, the 200mm lens works out to 320mm.

Canon makes a 200mm F2.8L lens that is very sharp. As I remember, it's about $600. It's expensive, but about $1400 cheaper than one of the 70-200mm F2.8 zoom lenses.

-jb

Jeff Mirkin Dec 9, 2003 12:43 PM

Prime lens vs telephoto
 
That's an interesting idea that I hadn't thought of. The prime lens will be faster but I'm concerned that I'll lose some flexibility w/o the zoom...particularly at 320mm (200mm times 1.6).

Jeff

NHL Dec 9, 2003 1:20 PM

What about the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX APO HSM that Eric put out? It's of high quality constant f/2.8 with APO(ie no purple fringing), Ultrasonic HSM(fast quiet AF with full time manual overide), and costs 1/2 as much as the 'L' version... :wink:

Jeff Mirkin Dec 9, 2003 2:28 PM

That sounds like just what I'm looking for. I'll assume the the Signa lenses work just as well with the 10D as Canon lenses? What about the Canon 75-300 IS USM?

By the way, thanks NFL, for responding. I know how knowledgable you are from all of the posts you make, and I was hoping you'd give me your input.

Jeff


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:16 AM.