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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 23, 2007, 12:55 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
k1par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 608
Default

Good day gang,

I am thinking about upgrading one of my lenses. What I plan to use it for is mostly outdoor sports that happen in all kinds of weather (fog, overcast, rain, snow, sunny, what have you). I am thinking about getting an IS lens (would love an L lens but they are a LOT of bucks and not in the budget right now). My current lens is a Tamron 70-300 DG which does a pretty good job but would like better results. My question is do I want IS or not and what lens(es) do you use or recommend.

The lenses I am considering are:

Canon 70-300mm IS

Sigma 80-400mm OS

Sigma 28-300mm OS and Not OS

The camera will be a Canon Digital Rebel XT.

Thanks.

k1par is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 24, 2007, 12:44 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Of the lenses listed, the Canon 70-300 will be the best. Neither of the sigma lenses have HSM so they'll be slow to focus.

And, as I'm sure you're already aware, a 5.6 lens isn't going to cut it when conditions get really overcast. So even the Canon is going to be of little use in those conditions. And you'll still have a problem getting subject isolation. But it's absolutely a better lens than what you're currently using.

IS for outdoor sports for anything less heavy than a 300mm 2.8 is unnecessary.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2007, 3:35 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

John,

You like the 70 300 IS Canon over the 80 400 OS? I think there a pretty big price difference, just curious.

Bill
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2007, 5:06 PM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

wsandman1 wrote:
Quote:
John,

You like the 70 300 IS Canon over the 80 400 OS? I think there a pretty big price difference, just curious.

Bill
The 80-400 does not have HSM - that's a problem for a sports lens. I'll admit I've never used the lens but w/o HSM I have my doubts it would be a good choice.

Having seen the price of this lens - around $900 I would say aMUCH better option is the sigma 100-300 f4ro $1000. Fantastic sports lens. Better than anything in this group.

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2007, 6:16 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

I have the 100 - 300 Sigma F4. I was lucky, I got it when it was $200 cheaper than the current list price. It's pretty fast and quiet too.
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2007, 8:34 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
k1par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 608
Default

Thanks everyone! Sometime before the spring sports season I will most likely order the Canon 70-300 IS lens. Everything I have read says that lens is a good one for the money (I am also trying to budget an XTi body at the same time). It will be my first IS lens and am very interested in how it will perform. Thanks again.


k1par is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2007, 10:43 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 78
Default

What is your budget? I had the Sigma 80-400. Got some pretty good shots with it. It seemed to focus as fast as the Canon 100-400 I have now. I actually purchased both of these, used them both for about 6 weeks, then made the decision to stick with Canon. Really and truly, I didn't have a good reason other than I got a great deal on the Canon and I kept it because it's white. Really, couldn't tell you the differnce.

As a sidenote, the sigma was much LOUDER focusing, but not slower.

The reason I ask on the budget is that if your budget is for a new lens you listed, you may could go with something used and open up more possibilities.
hayden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2007, 7:19 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
k1par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 608
Default

Budget could be up to $1000 so the Sigma is a choice. The loudness of the focus is not a real concern. As for used equipment, unless I know who had the lens and how it was used I tend to shy away from used and buy new. Thanks for your input, all the info I have received will be considered before I make my final decision.
k1par is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2007, 7:39 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 78
Default

Makes sense. I have been burned a few times by hastily placing a bid. Its been pretty rare, though,when I ask questions and look at feedback. Patience did pay off on the two lenses I mentioned in the post above. I got a sigma 80-400 for $620 and the Canon 100-400 for $1050. After using them both for 6 weeks, I sold the Sigma on ebay and ended up turning a profit of $130.
hayden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2007, 8:01 AM   #10
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

k1par wrote:
Quote:
Budget could be up to $1000 all the info I have received will be considered before I make my final decision.
So why aren't you considering the sigma 100-300 4.0?

Is it just that you want an IS lens?

That just makes no sense for sports shooting with a lens that light. IS is nice for other things but won't help you a bit. If you really want to start getting quality outdoor sports shots you really should consider the 100-300. Your budget allows it and it really is in a different league from the Canon (thus the reason it's $400 more). But your choice.
JohnG 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 5:44 AM.