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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 30, 2004, 10:43 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Tomsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 442
Default

Here is another source of information to help you decide what may work for you.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&thecat=27

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&thecat=27

Read over these reviews and balance the info to see what will best serve your needs and price point.
Tomsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2004, 12:28 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
curioustoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6
Default

The 70 - 200 looks like a champ to me. Now I just have to continue talking myself into dropping the moolah.

Thanks guys appreciate the help... Just wonder why Ritz doesn't sell this lens?

The only reason I wish they did was so I could go try it out at the store about an hour away from where I live.
curioustoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2004, 12:32 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default

From the link to Fred Miranda - my 75-300 came with a Hood! Only problem is all of those Canon Big plastic hoods take up a LOT of room in my bags!

Oh & by the way - Happy New Year to ALL of you out there!

David
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2005, 5:20 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Default

Before you go off an get the Canon 70-200 'L' lens you should check what Sigma, Tamron and Tokina offer in the same range.

I know Sigma has a 70-200mm constant f2.8 lens. It was a lens I was interested in myself but the price-tag was just too high for my pocket. The Sigma f2.8 costs around $800 while the competing Canon f2.8 in the same focal range costs $1000.

Now the Sigma f2.8 is more expensive then the Canon f4.0 - $800 vs $570. It is up to you to decide whether it's worth the money or not! Just remember that there are other options out there appart from Canon and sometimes 3rd party lenses can be just as good and sometimes better then what Canon themselves offer.

I myself couldn't afford to spend the money for the Sigma f2.8 or the Canon f4.0 and instead got a second-hand Canon 100-300 f4-5.6. It wasn't the lens I originally wanted and I was annoyed by the build-quality, but the lens takes good pictures when there is decent light and I have no real cause for complaint that the lens is quite slow. It is nice to boast about all these small "f-numbers" on your lenses but in practice I have found that the depth of field is too shallow at these apertures to be of much use anyway!
redundo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2005, 6:50 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Railfire wrote:
Quote:
Maybe I have a good 75-300IS. Here is what I have learned. You NEED to put the camera & lens on a GOOD, sturdy tripod, & I use the Remote Switch RS60-E3, and also turn the IS 'On'. (picked that up from Michael Richmann at http://www.luminous-landscape.com).

I thought the Idea of IS was that you could shoot hand held, I shoot with a 90-300 non usm canon lens, rarely use a tripod except for time lapse shots and they are quite clear and sharp. Ive been thinking hard about the 75-300 USM as a step up from what I have only because Im told USM is better, if I can get one with IS, all the better. Now Im totally confused. I don't want to go below 300 as I shoot a lot of wildlife and I use the 300 on full zoom a lot. Now Im wondering if maybe I should just upgrade to a 100-300 usm lens instead.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2005, 12:40 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default

This 90-300 Canon lens - I have never seen one of those listed. Is it an older model? as for being able to hand-hold the 75-300mm USM IS lens, if you are Younger & in better shape than I am, then you probably can do it. I have shot maybe 3 good pix at about 300 hand-held, but I still prefer the Tripod, especially if I ever want say an 11 X 14. If you want something for birds, I say try the 100-400L from Canon, but since I have only shot Birds once, I would prefer to let NHL or Eric Sput in their 2 cents worth on this matter. I tend to shoot a LOT more Wide images than I do tele. That's just me - maybe I need to start taking a different perspective on some of my other types of pix - like move way off & shoot the object with a bigger zoom. Then there is always the 70-200 range lenses & matched with 1.4x teleconvertors. I am told these do not work with the 75-300's unless you shoot the lens in Manual. Correct me if I am wrong on this one.
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2005, 6:08 PM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Railfire wrote:
Quote:
This 90-300 Canon lens - I have never seen one of those listed. Is it an older model?
I'm also a WA kind of guy...
FYI - http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/R..._f4.5-5.6.html


When I do shoot tele, I rather have a fast lens over IS:
1. Better 'Bokeh'
2. I can use a 1.4x or 2x TC to augment the tele and still be able to AF
3. I also realize one needs a faster shutter speed to freeze an action -> IS can help the photographer with handheld, but the resulting shutter speed would be too slow to catch a moving bird...

I posted this Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX with a 1.4x Sigma TC in the Nikon forum a while back:




NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2005, 9:59 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20
Default

Railfire,

I recently purchased the 75-300 IS lense.
I tried it today with my Tamron 2TC, because I shoot a D Rebel the auto focus only works below 250mm or less depending onlight conditions. It will not focus at the full 300 focal length.

NHL is correct in what he is saying with the faster shutter speeds for birds. The lense he is talking about is a great lense for clarity also.
The wildlife I take is mainly deer and other large game that doesn't move too quickly. I also do most of my shooting from a small boat in tight fitting creeks and some larger marshes. So I have to use an IS lense, tripod does absolutely nothing in a boat except for using to pole with. That's too much moeny to be sticking in the water and pushing a boat around with it.
Also I was told if you use the IS lense on a tripod to turn off the IS or it could burn out the servos for the IS. Just a word of caution.
Red Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2005, 11:03 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Well from what ive read Im considering a canon 100-300 USM lens now.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2005, 11:18 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

By the way, the 90-300 lens really is no where near as bad as some of the reviews, Ive had some very good results with it, I just want to upgrade to a USM lens. I got the 90-300 as part of a package with my Drebel and it was thrown in for next to nothing price wise and Ive had a great time learning with it.

It can be a little soft but I like some of the images I had

heres three taken full zoom







The lens was given such bad reviews Im thinking, if can can get these shots with it aUSM lens would give me great shots.
aladyforty 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 12:50 PM.