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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 25, 2010, 4:27 AM   #11
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

That's a pain, I bet they are adding OS or something, but was such a good lens, why mess with it?
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2010, 4:38 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Yeah. I know. Stabilizing a lens that's typically used for sports/action/wildlife shooting doesn't make a lot of sense. If they want to stabilize something, how about stabilizing a macro lens or two?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2010, 8:16 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
iowa_jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Central Iowa
Posts: 589
Default

With the Sigma out of the picture, what other options are there? I took another look at the 70-300 from Canon, and maybe I was a little too hasty to rule it out.
iowa_jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2010, 11:59 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Well, you could pick one up used. The one that KEH had last week is gone, but there are other sources.

There's the Canon 70-200/4.0, which is excellent and takes a 1.4X teleconverter very well, but the result is 98-280/5.6, which doesn't help much.

There are the Tamron and Sigma 70-200/2.8 lenses, which aren't great, and only get worse with teleconverters, but they're affordable, and with a 1.4X teleconverter, they become 98-280/4.0, which isn't bad.

There's the Canon 70-200/2.8 which is excellent and works well with a good teleconverter, but it ain't cheap.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2010, 1:41 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

there is another route.....get the olympus E series with 70-200 F2.8 sigma.....u get a fantastic wildlife set up with IS enabled 140-400 F2.8 Lens

costs a little more....used E-520 and used 70-200 should be equal to the canon 70-200 F2.8.

Honestly, E-3 with 120-300 F2.8 would be a beautiful marriage......would love to have the 600 mm f2.8 lens thats so light and so easy for wildlife..
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2010, 2:27 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nymphetamine View Post
Honestly, E-3 with 120-300 F2.8 would be a beautiful marriage......would love to have the 600 mm f2.8 lens thats so light and so easy for wildlife..


I see the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 ($3,000), but it's only available for Canon, Nikon and Sigma dSLRs.

I see the Olympus 90-250mm f/2.8 ($4,888).

Can you elaborate a little on what you're referring to?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2010, 3:18 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

If you find yourself using your old zoom at the longer ranges of 200-300mm, you might seriously want to look at the 70-300. It is not a bad lens, not L level. But for daylight shooting it works well. And it is 3x less the the new 70-300mm L, which has the same aperture range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iowa_jim View Post
With the Sigma out of the picture, what other options are there? I took another look at the 70-300 from Canon, and maybe I was a little too hasty to rule it out.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2010, 7:01 AM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iowa_jim View Post
With the Sigma out of the picture, what other options are there? I took another look at the 70-300 from Canon, and maybe I was a little too hasty to rule it out.
What about the sigma 150-500 or the 50-500?
They are both stabilized now...

The old non-stabilized Bigma is my main lens for everyday wildlife and quite light compare to other options for traveling:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/wi...rn-mayhem.html
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/wi...g-part-ii.html



Quote:
Originally Posted by nymphetamine View Post
...

Honestly, E-3 with 120-300 F2.8 would be a beautiful marriage......would love to have the 600 mm f2.8 lens thats so light and so easy for wildlife..
I have my mind set now on the E-5 and the Bigma -> 1000mm even @ f/8 is perfectly OK because you need the DOF anyway at theses focal lenghts (i.e. check the razor thin DOF on the posted green heron @ 500mm) - This will save you a lot of weight !!!

Last edited by NHL; Sep 26, 2010 at 8:42 AM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2010, 7:25 AM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Yeah. I know. Stabilizing a lens that's typically used for sports/action/wildlife shooting doesn't make a lot of sense. If they want to stabilize something, how about stabilizing a macro lens or two?
Your wish is granted - IMO the best macro at this moment:
http://dpreview.com/news/1009/10092118sigma150os.asp


Last edited by NHL; Sep 26, 2010 at 7:32 AM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2010, 8:22 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL View Post
Your wish is granted - IMO the best macro at this moment:
http://dpreview.com/news/1009/10092118sigma150os.asp
Whoa!

Very nice and about time!

Got any good stabilized, large aperture, standard zooms in your bag of tricks?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav 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 2:48 AM.