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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 30, 2006, 5:41 AM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

120mm on a crop body is too tight for some indoor shooting situations.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Take basketball - to get good basketball shots you should shoot from floor level, not from the stands. Shooting from the baseline the 120mm will be too tight even if the lighting is bright enough. If you're shooting from stands you also have to consider folks around you. Using a camera with a long lens can be obtrusive to other folks (which is why many pro stadiums limit lens size - it isn't really out of fear you're going to capture a great shot you can make money off of - they already own the rights to the players' images so you can't make money anyway) - it's to keep you from bringing in a 7 lb 18" lens that's sticking in the row in front of you.

So, even if lighting is good enough I would not suggest the 120-300 as a good basketball lens for sure.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 6:35 AM   #12
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,541
Default

BrierS wrote:
Quote:
... It now seems two of you decided to go with the Sigma rather than the Canon L with IS and it certainly wasn't to save money. :-)
You fail to notice that both John and I already own a 70-200 f/2.8 and the EF 100-400L IS among other IS lenses when we bought the Sigma so it's more for a special need than $! :-)

IMO for you the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 seems to be a better buy since you're going to use it with TC: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65
(It's sharper with a TC than the IS version without....)

Also I tend use FEL with flash... EC works as long as you already took a test shot and know what to compensate for. With wildlife fill you sometime only have only 1 chance so I lock the flash exposure on the subject....
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 7:24 AM   #13
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
You fail to notice that both John and I already own a 70-200 f/2.8 and the EF 100-400L IS among other IS lenses when we bought the Sigma so it's more for a special need than $! :-)

And now I have a son

so now I buy minivans and pay for daycare instead of buying new lenses :sad:



JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 3:55 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
BrierS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 157
Default

NHL,
Au contraire . . . I had indeed (found many threads) known you both have the Sigma and could tell it was for a good reason. Quality and your specific needs. :idea:
Additionally I can see it is the better choice so I will be ordering it along with the 2xTC this evening. Just in time for wrapping it up for myself (after I have used it a few weeks). Unless my memory is cloudy (at my age not too hard to happen) the Sigma TC was less expensive than the Canon. Any reason not to go with the least expensive of the two?

JohnG,
As to the son and temporary changes in spending priorities, been there and done that. My two sons are now 26 & 27. Frees me up to spend more on my new hobby while letting them know it is slowing the growth of their inheritances. :G

I do want to sincerely thank each of you for helping me through this decision. Hopefully you still remember how others may have done likewise for you. It is truly appreciated. Now I just look forward to getting by one learning curve after another.
Thanks again,
Steve

BrierS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2006, 10:22 PM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,541
Default

BrierS wrote:
Quote:
... Any reason not to go with the least expensive of the two?
ONE very good reason! :-)

The Sigma is black with the zen finish will match the Sigma very well...
The Canon is off-white and will match the Canon L's better - so it'll depend on the lens you'll end up with, IMO it's not very photogenic to match a black lens with a white TC or vice versa.




JohnG
Congratulation on your son... been there done that as well
My 2 kids are now in college, with my daughter graduating this summer - Hooray (until her $wedding$ I guess)!!!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2006, 7:03 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
BrierS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 157
Default

As I said I was going to, I ordered the Sigma and the 2X. One thing I failed to do was to order a UV filter. Any specific recommendations?
Steve
BrierS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2006, 8:29 AM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,541
Default

The cheapest one I found (for its size) was actually from Sigma - It has gone up a bit:
http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;j...G105UVDMC%3D29
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2006, 2:12 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
BrierS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 157
Default

Yesterday I receive my Sigma EX 120-300mm and 2x TC. Upon unpacking and initial inspection, I heard a faint clicking noise emanating from the rear 2/3 of the lens when rotating the entire lens. Sounds almost as if something is moving ever so slightly. Took about a dozen shots with it last night and it seemed to work properly.

Have you ever noticed or would you check your same lens to see if you hear the same type of slight clicking?

You were absolutely correct in describing the size . . . I had viewed photos of the lens, read the dimensional specs yet until holding it in my hand had not appreciated the heft and overall size. All shots last night were freehand and though later I suffered with muscle spasms in my back, I had to laugh at myself knowing it was from some activities earlier in day.
Steve
BrierS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2006, 4:55 AM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,541
Default

No 'noise' from my lens... and I'm quite brutal with it
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2006, 5:14 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
BrierS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 157
Default

Mine sounds similar to a very small ball-bearing moving ever so slightly. Not loud though unless it is common, I may want to think about sending it back. Nothing unusual in the photos so far yet that may not be an indicator . . .
Thanks,
Steve

PS Nice lens. Thank you for helping to steer me in the right direction.
BrierS 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 7:11 AM.