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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 17, 2009, 3:54 PM   #11
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

It is just not a very sharp lens unless you stop down quite a bit and even then it is not as sharp as the 70-300 USM. They are a different class all together. Then there is the focus speed which again the 70-300 is a lot faster at.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2009, 3:59 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: kansas
Posts: 4
Default

I have found a site to rent some different lenses. I might try that so i can have more hands on and a better idea of the quality of the pictures the lens takes.
jdavis1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2009, 4:05 PM   #13
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Also you can check out this site http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/canon/ just remember it doesn't take into consideration the ability of the photographer, the lighting conditions etc but it will give a guide.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2009, 7:37 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: kansas
Posts: 4
Default

Thanks. I can use all the help I can get.
jdavis1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2009, 10:22 AM   #15
elo
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 74
Default

Mark, if you are willing to spend the money for a 70-300 is usm wouldn’t it be better spent on a 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS). From all the reading I have done the 70-200 F/4L seems to be the best for the money. As long as you are shooting speeds over 1/320ish (I for get the exact number) you should not need IS. If you use the lens indoors you can still be ok with a external flash. And if you can’t use flash you can use a monopod to help you hold it steady.

Here is a review http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx that compares 3, 55-250, 70-300 and 70-200.

I am almost 100% sure that I will be getting the 70-200 F/4L (non IS) I know i'll be missing 100mm, but the pictures are suppose to be much sharper on this L lens.

Please correct me if am wrong.
elo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2009, 10:59 AM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Elo,

It really comes down to whether you need the 100mm. These two lenses are priced the same for a reason. If you need the extra reach, you'll lose the benefit of the 70-200 f4 because you're constantly cropping too much. If you DONT need the extra reach then the 70-200 is sharper and much better built lens.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2009, 3:04 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10
Default

The Canon EF 75-300mm USM Zoom Lens is pretty good, I got mine for 209. If your still unhappy with the distance which i doubt you will be you can later buy a teleconvertor to double the distance the lens can reach.
kn9ne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2009, 3:09 PM   #18
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kn9ne12 View Post
The Canon EF 75-300mm USM Zoom Lens is pretty good, I got mine for 209. If your still unhappy with the distance which i doubt you will be you can later buy a teleconvertor to double the distance the lens can reach.
As I just posted in the thread http://forums.steves-digicams.com/ca...tml#post993210 in reference to that lens.

"It is a very weak lens so wouldn't touch it the 55-250 is better, but you nearly always get what you pay for. If you are going to go for this sort of range the Tamron 70-300mm is a better choice but still not great. "

Also with all 70-300mm f4-5.6 lenses adding a TC is not a great idea and really not with the low optical quality of the 75-300, you would want a minimum of the 70-200mm f4 to start putting a TC on.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2009, 3:21 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

Quote:
I am almost 100% sure that I will be getting the 70-200 F/4L (non IS) I know i'll be missing 100mm, but the pictures are suppose to be much sharper on this L lens.
if thats the case, why not compromise on the 70 end and get yourself "THE" best 100-300 F4 non IS Sigma lens.

The lens is almost a prime at comparable aperture at 100,200 and 300mm.. It takes a 1.4X tele and at 400mm the lens is still comparable for sharpness and contrast

sigma 120-300 and Sigma 100-300 are the two best lens from the sigma stable(ooops just forgot to add the 12-24 )
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2009, 3:27 AM   #20
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nymphetamine View Post
if thats the case, why not compromise on the 70 end and get yourself "THE" best 100-300 F4 non IS Sigma lens.

The lens is almost a prime at comparable aperture at 100,200 and 300mm.. It takes a 1.4X tele and at 400mm the lens is still comparable for sharpness and contrast

sigma 120-300 and Sigma 100-300 are the two best lens from the sigma stable(ooops just forgot to add the 12-24 )
The problem with the 100-300 is the price, at about 2x that of the 70-200 f4 non IS it is a huge amount of money. Yes it is an amazing lens I won't disagree with that.

With the best lenses from Sigma you forgot the 200-500mm f2.8, now that simply rocks. I only need to sell my car and a few other things to get one!!
Mark1616 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 3:57 PM.