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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 25, 2005, 9:54 PM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Mr_Saginaw wrote:
Quote:
obviously (hey NHL, maybe I SHOULD change my name to Mr. Obvious! :lol: ) it is your money.... but i do think you'ld be doing yourself a disservice by sticking strictly with Canon lenses.... minutephotos.com had the same mind set... all set to stick with Canon L lenses...

in case you missed it:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=44139&forum_id=2&jump_to=233683# p233683
I missed that post and just added a few comments if you 'clicked' on the above link :idea:




perdendosi

The Canon 70-200 f/4L is indeed sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8L (just check their MTFs) when wide opened... But who says that the 70-200 f/2.8L is not as sharp when it's closed down to f/4 ??? -> some one needs to plot an MTF for that f/2.8 lens @ f/4!!! :G :lol: :-)
... The real question is can you get the bokeh or the high-precision AF of the f/2.8 on the 20D when you 'only' have an f/4! :blah:


BTW speaking about Canon lenses holding their value... someone should check Ebay for the 70-300 IS value
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 12:06 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8
Default

75-300 IS can't be compared when talking about image quality with 70-200L, only if you are really a beginner you can be fooled. And the 2 lenses are not ment to be compared.



I owned first 75-300 IS and my needs pushed me ahead to 70-200 f4...There is a big difference.

The 100 mm advantage pretty much goes away as at the long third 75-300 is kinda soft.

If the price of a 70-200 is affordable go for it without any hesitation. Not for f2.8 for the moment, that is an unnecesary step for most amateurs and mean almost double the price of f4. Regarding your "low light" needs....still 75-300 is f4, so. And to be honest, i do that kind of wedding jobs often enough...let's be real, is not a book catalog or artistic pictures...For that purpose a faster sigma lense would do the job. Not the same image quality but who really cares that much about the difference?

These advices comes from own experience of a guy that had both lenses and not from internet reviews nad "i hear from a friend"...

If the extra lenght is a must you have 1.4x TC available with almost no loss in quality and keeping AF.

Also, if lenght is important i strongly sugest a decent price and good quality Bigma. I have one and the pcitures get in Danube Delta on birds, even in low light, are very good.

Is not your case if you talk about weddings only but just in case, i'm offering alternatives.



SO pragmatically speaking if the purpose is just weddings and you earn money from that go for f4L or think about a faster sigma lense.

If you plan to make art photos, sports, newspapers work, etc...a L lense would be better, depending how important is that other part of your work...may be forced to go for 2.8 L...

If all wedding stuff is just a hobby and you also shoot wildlife adn stuff Bigma could be the lense you want. (That if you can afford only one long telephoto, is very heavy piece of glass )



Good luck !
parintele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 6:48 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

parintele wrote:
Quote:
If the price of a 70-200 is affordable go for it without any hesitation. Not for f2.8 for the moment, that is an unnecesary step for most amateurs and mean almost double the price of f4. Regarding your "low light" needs....still 75-300 is f4, so...
Again this is true only if one 'stays' within the Canon family - The Sigma is not twice as much, but only for the additional cost of a tripod mount which is not included with the 70-200 f/4L (the Sigma comes with case, shade and removeable tripod mount)! :?

What one gives up though is not just the faster lens, but the higher precision AF of the 20D, and the better 'bokeh' of an f/2.8 as pictured below:






BTW the 75-300 is f/4 @ 75mm, but f/5.6 at 300mm.
i.e. 2-stop down - so it is a lot slower... Also the Sigma f/2.8 is only heavier as compared to an f/4L - It's not heavier than the other Canon's f/2.8L or its IS version (this is just due to the larger optics required by the faster lenses)!!!




... and obviously Mr_Saginaw you are not a 'sissy' either, especially with the 'muscles' of someone who can manhandle this 120-300 f/2.8! :G :lol: :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 6:48 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8
Default

NHL, i was talking about Canon's f2.8, not sigma's one. In fact i reccomended him a 2.8 sigma if the 2.8 is a must for him.

Also when i copared f4 of 70-200 and f4 of 75-300 i knew about f5.6 at longer end. BUT to be fully precise comparing 70-200 with the same focal lenght from that 75-300, that mean 75-200 let's say...is still f4, isn't it? Anyway IS usually mean gaining advantage of 1 stop so...Int the end that was the point, the 75-300 Is is anything but a faster lense than 70-200 f4L

I think beyond our friendly advices and opinions newbieX must think very well at the purpose of that lense. 70-200 have some advantages on sigma 2.8, that is my opinion anyway...Sigma have 1 stop advantage...After that is the price...Onlu him is the one that could know better what he need the glass for and how he can spend his money wisely...

My conclusin is anyway not 75-300IS when he can afford something certainly better likecanon's f4 or sigma's 2.8 or even canon's 2.8...
parintele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 7:12 PM   #15
Member
 
newbieX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 59
Default

Thank you very much for all the input guys. I really appreciate this. I have read reviews over and over on the all 3 lenses that I mentioned above. I definitely need a zoom lens.

I have pretty much ditched the Canon 75-300mm IS lens since there has been too many negative reviews on slowness on AF and softness on high zoom. So...I'll probably be buying the 70-200mm f2.8 OR the 70-200 f4. I plan to try thesetwolenses out at a local camera store to make my final decision.

Thank you all again.
newbieX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2005, 3:44 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 117
Default

As I've said in many posts.....go for the 70-200 f2.8 lens..you'll not regret it, I haven't!



This was taken in Sharjah, UAE.

Cheers,
Carl.
CarlsPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2005, 10:49 PM   #17
Member
 
newbieX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 59
Default

Guys...thank you again. I had the chance to try out an "L" series lens (35-350mm)today right after trying out the Canon EF 75-300 ISand MAN...it's AMAZING. The lens is FAST. So I'm definitely going to spend the extra money for the Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L.
newbieX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2005, 4:20 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Mr. Peabody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Default

newbieX wrote:
Quote:
I just recently bought a Canon EOS 20D - I LOVE this camera. I bought it with the base 18-55mm lens and I'm looking to buy a good zoom lens. Here are my options:

1) Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

2) Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

3) Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (a bit out of my budget)

I'm really really torn between these 3 lenses. I love the fact that the 75-300 has the extra 100mm zoom but with the Image Stabilizer, would it be enough? I'm getting into wedding photography so...there will be a LOT of instances where I'll be stuck with low lighting. When I shoot indoor shots, I pretty much ALWAYS use an external flash and I plan to get the Canon 580EX. So, would the 75-300mm be enough or should I go with something else?

Any advice would be good.

Thank you.
I also have a 20D with the base EF 18-55mm lens. I also bought the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM lens. It's not the IS lens. However, I have been very pleased with it. I love to shoot my kids playing little league sports. The 75-300mm is great for daytime outdoor action shots. I have no complaints at all about it. I also like to shoot long range closeups with it. Been very pleased with those shots too.

Problem is that my night time football action photos and indoor basketball action photos are terrible. They are blurry and streaky.

I've been considering buying the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens. I know this will solve my night time and indoor action shots. Like you, I hate to sacrifice the 100mm difference between the lenses.

So, here is my plan. I'm going to buy the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens along with an EF 2.0x II Extender. I'll use the extender with the lens for my daytime outdoor baseball and football action shots. This will give the lens 400mm capability and only raise it 2 stops to a f/4.8 which is well below f/5.6 of my current 75-300mm lens.
Mr. Peabody 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 6:17 PM.