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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 23, 2005, 8:08 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
killdeer0007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,328
Default

I'm looking at purchasing a second, possibly third lens for my XT. For my walk around lens I'm using a Sigma 18-125. I was thinking of getting the Sigma 100-300 F4 for my second lens. After reading posts it sounds like Prime lenses may be the way to go. If I go that route, I was thinking of the Canon EF 200mm F2.8 II USM.

How would the optical quality compare between these lenses, and can I add a teleconverter to the Canon?

Thanks

//jim
killdeer0007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 23, 2005, 8:21 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

There's no doubt in anyone mind that a prime is the best; however you're 'stuck' with one focal lenght... If you always shoot from the same vantage point - then nothing can beat it

The Sigma 100-300f/4 on the other hand is the top rated lens in this 100-300 range in the photozone comparison tests, but they are now in the process of updating their site (BTW the next three down that list were also Sigmas with 1 Contax in between) - even rated higher than my 120-300 f/2.8:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...292266#p292266


In practice however especially when tracking moving subjects you want to be at the wide angle setting for the search and 'zoom' in for the kill which is kind of hard to do when you have fix prime especially the longer the focal lenght you go...






NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2005, 10:11 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 544
Default

Primes are easier and less expensive to produce, thus a marinally better exposure is possible (assuming a high quality lens) at a lower price. Having said this, high quality zooms provide a lot of flexibility and potentially very slightly reduced quality at more cost.

Unless you're a purist or a pro, consider a high quality zoom...
Wildman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2005, 1:03 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
killdeer0007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,328
Default

Nice pictures. The Sigma 100-300 F4 is more in my price range. I think I'll pass on the prime lenses sinceI'm just a hobbyist.

Will I have problems with camera shake with the Sigma? At the longer lengths is IS necessary or just use a monpod or tripod?

//jim
killdeer0007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2005, 11:47 PM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

killdeer0007 wrote:
Quote:
Will I have problems with camera shake with the Sigma? At the longer lengths is IS necessary or just use a monpod or tripod?
I used to carry a monopod with my 120-300 f/2.8 (principally for the weight) but have found it to be 'cramping' my style - I now shoot only handheld, and just realized that I don't need to go to the gym anymore :-)

Seriously though your 100-300 f/4 is only half the weight of the f/2.8 and if you shoot above 1/focal-lenght shutter speed then no tripod will be required -> you'll find that most action shots will need this faster shutter speed anyway to freeze the movements - where IS is not applicable...

I also happen to be a lens purist, and tend to be more picky on a lens design than its brand - True zoom don't change focus when the focal lenght is changed since I use this technique extensively following birds in flight and zoom-in for the shot: The EF zooms (contrary to their older FD) that I've checked are guaranteed to change focus when one zoom in or out! :O
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2005, 7:48 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
killdeer0007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,328
Default

NHL - what lens did you use for the above picture? Will the Sigma 100-300 F4 be comparable?

//jim
killdeer0007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2005, 8:44 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

killdeer0007

I use the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX - The same one here shot handheld (@ 1/90-1/250s) as well:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=30682
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=32296


If anything the 100-300 f/4 EX is even sharper still (at 1/2 the cost and weight)!!! :idea:

120-300 f/2.8: vs 100-300 f/4:


FYI - "Probably the best 300mm zoom under $1,000" (with some 1.4x teleconverter samples)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2005, 2:10 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3
Default

This is very interesting, I was not aware of that Sigma posts MTF charts. Too bad they only apparently test them wide open, but not also at f/8 like Canon.

I compared the Canon's 70-200L vs. Sigma 70-200EX. My findings: Sigma clearly wins at the 70mm end (about 5% sharpness and contrast), and Canon wins at 200mm end; it's slightly sharper and for about 7% contrastier, however, Sigma appears to give better bokeh.

And now, please, can someone explain to me why, according to MTF charts, the Canon 200mm 2.8L II prime clearly appears MUCH inferior to Canon or even Sigma @ 200? The only upside I can recognize is more even corner-to-corner picture - yet some people claim the 200 prime being slightly sharper than the zoom...???
karusel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2005, 3:10 PM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

karusel wrote:
Quote:
This is very interesting, I was not aware of that Sigma posts MTF charts. Too bad they only apparently test them wide open, but not also at f/8 like Canon.
Wide open is the worst case - It only get better from there (which is already excellent). Why clutter up the charts? :-)




Quote:
And now, please, can someone explain to me why, according to MTF charts, the Canon 200mm 2.8L II prime clearly appears MUCH inferior to Canon or even Sigma @ 200? The only upside I can recognize is more even corner-to-corner picture - yet some people claim the 200 prime being slightly sharper than the zoom...???
I guess no one bother to check
(also the f/8 does make it looks better does it?)

-> Most primes are also quite 'antique' in design... New releases tend to be zooms which command a higher market share
... and where most design efforts are now concentrated
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2005, 6:41 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
killdeer0007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,328
Default

Thanks for the information. The Sigma 100-300 F4 seems more in my budget. I just have to find out how well it will match with the Rebel XT.

Any one know?

//jim
killdeer0007 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 11:41 AM.