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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 11, 2004, 1:32 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 54
Default

Hey folks,

Okay, here's the background. I purchased the Digital Rebel/300D a while back, with the Kit lens. My progression through lenses since has been:

1 - purchased the 50mm 1.8 II for its aperture versatility. I use it as my main lens for indoor shots, with or without flash, at smallish venues like homes etc. Also use it when I'm taking creative-ish shots where I want really thin DOF.

2 - purchased the 28-135 IS as my main walk-about lens, replacing the kit lens for that role, as I was finding the 55mm long end quite limiting.

So here I am, happy on the short end. On the exteme-wide for landscapes, I could definitely user wider, but the kit will do for now until there are more options.

On the long end, however, I forsee that I will need more range. I enjoy taking shots of various wildlife. I'm not a dedicated wildlife photographer, but if I'm out in an area where there are a lot of animals/birds around, I like to take shots of them.

In terms of my personal situation, I am still what I consider a very amateur photog. I am not prepared at this time to spend $1000+ on a lens, as considering my skills and it wouldn't be warranted IMHO. That being said, I'm willing to pony up to get more than the bare-minimum/bottom of the barrel type lens.

So, what are your thoughts/suggestions? Things I'm thinking about right now:
Canon 75-300 IS
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (although I'm thinking 200 isn't much of a jump over the 135 I already have)
Canon 70-200 f4L (same thoughts as the Sigma 70-200)
Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 USM
Sigma 135-400 4.5-5.6 (no HSM/USM...that feature I like)

Again, keeping in mind what I said about my budget. While something like a 70-300 IS DO or 100-400L IS would be really nice...just isn't in the cards for me.

Thanks!
Graeme
Graeme Shiomi is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 11, 2004, 1:38 PM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Graeme Shiomi wrote:
Quote:
...
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (although I'm thinking 200 isn't much of a jump over the 135 I already have)
Canon 70-200 f4L (same thoughts as the Sigma 70-200)
... but it's f/2.8!

FYI, this one has HSM that you liked...
http://www.naturephotographers.net/je1001-2.html
http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=1140


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2004, 1:43 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I don't recall the cost of the Sigma 50-500, but you might consider that. It's is very good for the price and range.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2004, 5:48 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 209
Default

I vote for the 75-300is. The price isnt horrible and it has is. My friend has it and loves it.
LTBerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2004, 12:43 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

The 70-200 F4 L is an excellent moderately-priced lens, albeit a bit slower (though lighter) than others and without IS (but you have to expect some trade-offs for the price with that image quality).

If it's as good as I think it is relatively, then you maynotice enough of a difference to reduce the usage of your 28-135, preferring it instead for it's sharpness and contrast. It's technically better than the 28-135 in the overlapping range. The overlapmay seem like a waste, but is it really? You should consider it.

It is also technically better than the 75-300 IS, and the 100-300 4.5-5.6 and even the 100-400 F4-5.6 L

It is notably good at 200mm.

Don't forget that the 1.6 multiplier exaggarates the difference -- it's effectively 320mm. For additional reach, you can add a 1.4x extender later with a 1-stop loss. You can also get that stop back by changing the ISO.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...ding-mtf.shtml

http://www.photodo.com

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/li...oom/index.html

My bias is towards optical quality. It can be a pleasure. But if ergonomics or speed or reach or IS are more important to you, than your money will be better spent elsewhere.
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2004, 6:26 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I tend to agree with the above poster, the EF 75-300 IS USM is probably one of the worst lens from Canon: http://tihlde.org/~chrisnes/lenses.html

A long zoom is mostly used to bring in action shots and for that IS is not very helpful (ie IS does not overcome subject movements). What you need is faster lens with larger aperture when nature is not in your favour... :idea:

Also don't make the mistake of comparing zoom range without paying attention to f-stop. One stop may looks small, but going from f/4 to f/2.8, or f/5.6 to f/4 can result in significantly larger $ (and heavier) optics along with the better Bokeh!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2004, 11:58 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The other thing that NHL didn't say is that a fstop difference of f5.6 -> f4 is double the shutter speed. Which is exactly what you need when trying to stop motion. This is the big downside fo the 50-500. Its f6.3 at 500. So it works great in good light (surprisingly sharp) but it requires lots of light, a still subject, or you have to accept higher ISO values (reduced image quality) to get the shutter speed you need.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2004, 12:50 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Eric

f/6.3 is a not a full stop but a 1/3... ie barely noticeable @ f/5.6 and why the lens can fool the camera's metering. Still an excellent lens for the money!

http://www.chem.helsinki.fi/~toomas/photo/ev.html
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2004, 1:51 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

In another thread, Long glass, I refer to an article that showsa particular lens is sharper at F5.6 than another one is at F11 at the same magnification.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...=65&page=3

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml

A high-quality lens such as the 70-200 F4 L is going to be sharper at F4 than some others are at F5.6 and higher. And it takes a really great lens to be sharper than that one at F2.8. This point is merely that you need to consider more than just the stated maximum aperture.

And of course, all else equal,a faster lens is better. However in the real world, all else is never equal and trade-offs must be considered.
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2004, 11:00 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 54
Default

Wow...lots to consider. Probably the #1 thing that really peaked my interest was when NHL said:
"A long zoom is mostly used to bring in action shots and for that IS is not very helpful (ie IS does not overcome subject movements). What you need is faster lens with larger aperture when nature is not in your favour..."

Never thought of this, but it is very true. So, that being said, which would be more ideal in your opinion?
Canon 70-200 F4 L with 1.4x Canon extender
OR
Sigma 70-200 2.8 with 1.4x Sigma extender

Thinking would be, as was stated in the thread, buy the 70-200 and, if I notice the need for more length, go for the extender. In terms of cost, the higher cost of the Canon extender almost makes up for the higher price of the Sigma 70-200 over the Canon 70-200.

G
Graeme Shiomi 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 3:55 PM.