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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 22, 2004, 12:02 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Mealers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 169
Default

I need some help and advice on choosing a good all round lense to go with my 300d. I shoot mainly outdoor sport in the daylight but 90% of the time i use my 50-500 for this. I also have the Kit lens, but im looking for something to replace my old 75-300. I've been thinking about the Canon 70-200 f/4L or the Sigma 70-200 f2.8.
Has anyone got these lenses and can comment on them?

Thanks in advance

Mealers is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 22, 2004, 1:15 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7
Default

For my 20D, I am using a 24-70 F/2.8 L USM for my walk about lens. I did one walk with my 70-200 F/4 L USM, but the reach was longer than I generally wanted. Now when time comes to shoot race cars, then the 70-200 is the first lens out of the backpack.
MitchAlsup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2004, 1:34 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Mealers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 169
Default

MitchAlsup wrote:
Quote:
For my 20D, I am using a 24-70 F/2.8 L USM for my walk about lens. I did one walk with my 70-200 F/4 L USM, but the reach was longer than I generally wanted. Now when time comes to shoot race cars, then the 70-200 is the first lens out of the backpack.
My 50-500 is just to big and bulky to move with. How is the 70-200 f/4L to move with? Everybody rants about 'L' glass, is it really worth the money over its competitors?
Mealers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2004, 2:12 PM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is heavier than the f/4L, but so are all others f/2.8 lenses... It's just larger optics no way around that for faster lens!

FYI: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=10311369
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2004, 7:21 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

My walk around lens is either my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Di or my Canon 17-40 f/4L lens depending on where I'm walking and what mood I'm in
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2004, 10:36 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

It's up to you what you want to walk around with. I've walked and cycled around with a MF camera, 3 lenses, tripod, and a light meter. Some people have told me that I'm crazy for getting an ultralight bike and then strapping that gear to my back. They may be right.

OTOH, some people wouldn't think of "going out" with more than a pocket camera. So the bulkiness choices are compromises that you are willing to make for the art/etc.

The 70-200 f/4.0 L is not small, nor extremely light, nor a great lens for all-around photography, esp. with a cropped DSLR. But optically, it's an awesome lens that is very well liked by its owners. You look for chances to use this lens. Another good reason for going full frame when that comes.. I don't go out without this lens when I'm using my EOS gear.

Similarly, I don't go out without my 80-200 f/4.0 L when I'm carrying my FD gear.

But I don't always go out with my Canon gear. Sometimes it'll just be a rangefinder or a TLR or a P&S digicam...

The 70-200 f/4.0 isnot a good "all around" lens option. The 17-40 f/4.0 L or the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8or the EF-S 17-85 IS or the Canon 28-135 IS or even the 50 1.8 II will give you many more chances in general "walking around" photography with a single lens.
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2004, 10:23 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

I am also deciding between canon 70-200 f4& sigma 70-200 f2.8 as they are in the same price range. Don't laugh, right now my walk-around lens is 100-400L. It depends on what you shoot. If you shooting people, 70-200 is good IMHO. If you into landscape kind of stuff, then you need something wider. I wish 28-135 hadbetter picture quality then it would have been great.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2004, 1:04 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8EX is priced between the EF 70-200 f/4L and the 70-200 f/2.8L...
http://www.naturephotographers.net/mg0600-1.html
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2004, 1:46 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Mealers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 169
Default

Yeh when i said walk around i meant for sport. So a 'normal' walk around just wont cut the mustard.
NHL, thanks for a great link.
I think what my problem really is, is that i already use one of Sigmas EX range but have never used any of Canons 'L' series before. Although i'm very happy with the Sigma i dont know first hand how good the Canon is. I dont live near any citys where you can try before you buy so your input is basically what i have to go on.
Thanks again
Mealers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2004, 2:12 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

If youdecide to go withthe L glass, you will more than happy. Much better than Sigma, IMHO. And resale value is pretty good. Sure even some L lenses have issues but most of time I think it is the operator or the camera. Buy from areputable dealer so you can exhange it if you have to.
bobbyz 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 10:02 PM.