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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 4, 2006, 10:35 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
Default

I am looking to get an Rebel XT, and I wanna get a good telephoto lense,* but I have no clue what's a good one.* Can anyone please help me out here?
The Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 4, 2006, 11:29 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Justin Hancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 272
Default

What's your price range? Do you need fast autofocusing? Do you want image stabilizing? What things will you be shooting with the telephoto lense?
Justin Hancock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2006, 1:00 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175
Default

The Shadow wrote:
Quote:
I am looking to get an Rebel XT, and I wanna get a good telephoto lense,� but I have no clue what's a good one.� Can anyone please help me out here?
My experience:

Bargain best: Sigma 70-300 APO Macro

Middle of the road best: Canon 70-300 IS

High end best: Canon 100-400L

Chris M

www.imagineimagery.com


ChrisDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2006, 7:22 AM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

ChrisDM wrote:
Quote:
My experience:

Bargain best: Sigma 70-300 APO Macro

Middle of the road best: Canon 70-300 IS

High end best: Canon 100-400L


I would say Justin is correct -we need to know what the telephoto will be used for to know if these solutions are appropriate. For instance, the 100-400 is a great wildlife lens but a poor field sports lens (due to the 5.6 aperture).

Depending on the shooting a 70-200 f4 or 70-200 2.8 may be better solutions than any of the above.

IMO it all comes down to what your specific needs are.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2006, 10:40 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

That is an excellent analysis, JohnG!
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2006, 11:24 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
I would say Justin is correct -we need to know what the telephoto will be used for to know if these solutions are appropriate. For instance, the 100-400 is a great wildlife lens but a poor field sports lens (due to the 5.6 aperture).
Well, it depends much less on the subject and much more on the amount of available light. For instance, the 100-400L doesn't make a great wildlife lens if the lildlife is moving rapidly at dusk, but it makes a great field sports lens as long as the sports are played outdoors during daylight hours, or under bright stadium lights at night.


Also, f5.6 is a decent aperture for a 400mm lens. You'd have to spend over $5,000 for Canon's 400mm f4, and this only buys you one more stop.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

ChrisDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2006, 6:07 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

How come the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX is always left out? :idea:

For most action shots IS is not helping (but f/4 does somewhat); however this lens is easily the best zoom around including when used with a 1.4x TC (i.e. 420mm f/5.6) where it even exceeds the 100-400L in resolution...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2006, 7:31 AM   #8
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

ChrisDM wrote:
Quote:
Well, it depends much less on the subject and much more on the amount of available light. For instance, the 100-400L doesn't make a great wildlife lens if the lildlife is moving rapidly at dusk, but it makes a great field sports lens as long as the sports are played outdoors during daylight hours, or under bright stadium lights at night.


Also, f5.6 is a decent aperture for a 400mm lens. You'd have to spend over $5,000 for Canon's 400mm f4, and this only buys you one more stop.

Chris M
http://www.imagineimagery.com
A couple points on this:

Here is an example of just why a 5.6 lens is a poor field sports lens because of too much DOF. Taken with 20D and 100-400 5.6 lens:



The background is WAY too distracting. It's one thing when the lens is a $300 lens but to pay $1400 you shouldn't be so limited.

As for bright stadium lights at night - what stadiums are you talking about? I've never shot in a high school stadium with bright enough lights throughout the field for a 5.6 lens to work. Most stadiums I shot in last year were getting me around 1/500 or 1/600 at 2.8 and ISO 3200 and that was at mid field. By the endzones the light drops off a bit and I was at around 1/320.

As for $5000 - actually I spent $2100 on a Sigma 120-300 2.8 Slap a $170 Sigma 1.4x TC on it and you have a 420mm 4.0 lens.

Again - if you're on a budget and can only afford say a Sigma 70-300 lens ($220) that's one thing - but $1400 is too much to spend for the limitations of a 5.6 apertrue IF (again big IF here) field sports is your main objective. The Sigma 100-300 f4 NHL mentions is a better, and cheaper, alternative and Sigma 120-300 2.8 is absolutely a better alternative (although $600 more than the 100-400).


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2006, 10:46 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

JohnG, can you post some sports shots from your sigma f2.8 zoom with 1.4xTC.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2006, 10:48 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

To OP, what do you intend to shoot most often and what is your price range? Lens choice depends on that.
bobbyz 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 8:45 PM.