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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 14, 2005, 11:42 PM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

IMO you guys missed the point: If anyone is in the market for a 300mm f/2.8 (not f/5.6), the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX is a bargain of a lens! and it's not any heavier (@ only 1/2 the cost, and much more practical): http://www.canon.com.hk/En/Product/P...product_id=347


After all you guys are comparing a lens which is 4x less bright - A compromise would be the 100-300 f/4 EX which will meet both lenses 1/2 way both in term of weight and brightness!!!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2005, 12:50 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Welll not really :-) , the original poster was looking at the 70-200 F2.8 as the very high end of what they were looking at price wise..
I agree as a 300 F2.8 it is a major bargain :!:
I just mentioned that 120-300 F2.8 as an example. And I accidentally bought it at a photo trade show today. My arm felt like it was coming off by the time I got back to the car :blah:

Peter.

NHL wrote:
Quote:
IMO you guys missed the point: If anyone is in the market for a 300mm f/2.8 (not f/5.6), the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX is a bargain of a lens! and it's not any heavier (@ only 1/2 the cost, and much more practical): http://www.canon.com.hk/En/Product/P...product_id=347
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2005, 6:59 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

PeterP

Plus don't forget - You also get the reach of a pretty fast 600mm f/5.6: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...292266#p292266

Doesn't everyone have to carry the weight of an extra lens or so when the need for the extra reach is needed, especially when a lens is already @ f/5.6?

Which combo is heavier and less convenient then???
... Remember I traded my Bigma 50-500 previously for this 120-300 f/2.8 EX
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2005, 11:11 AM   #14
FJ
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8
Default

Wow! Thanks for the advice, not sure if I am less confused, but I AM fascinated. Think I WANT the 70-200 f2.8 IS, but the DO is tempting due to size, range and cost.

Would I be making a horrible error?
FJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2005, 1:05 PM   #15
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Can you rent them to try them out? Or at least get your hands on them to feel how big and heavy they are and whether that's a problem for you.

Here's the thing, I'm quite happy to accept that the 120-300 is one of the very best lenses that money can buy. If you gave it to me for free I can think of maybe 1 occasion in the last 6 months where I might have used it instead of my DO. I have no doubt that NHL would be able to say the same thing in reverse.

I was out walking for 3 hours today with my wife and young daughter in her pushchair. There is no way on earth I could possibly have taken a 6lb lens with me, but the DO can sit on my camera slung round my neck for hours at a time. I don't get a chance to go out specifically to take photographs - I go out with my family and if I'm lucky I get to take some photographs along the way.

NHL thinks IS is mostly a waste of time, because if the light's not right then what are you doing taking pictures anyway. I spend time in both Johannesburg and London, the average day in Jhb has about 3 stops more light available. In London it's overcast 4 days in 5 and in winter the light is really terrible. If I have to wait for good light at a time when I have no other commitments I'd take photos maybe 10 days a year. The Jhb I wouldn't need it, but in London I do.

The DO is a specialist combination - if you need what it offers then it's an amazing lens. If you don't need its features then it's an expensive paperweight.

How about taking photos of golf? Well I dunno, it depends really - are you there to take photos primarily or there to watch the golf primarily and hope to get some good photos too. It's certainly a lens I'd take to watch golf for the following reason - your subjects are fairly large and slow-moving, the light will often be good and you might be walking long distances during the course of the day and still want good optical quality.

There is room for reasonable people to disagree over these things.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...a-worked.shtml
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2005, 1:28 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Ya , though I have now discovered that my good old manfrotto 168 ball head is not up to holding the new lens without a bit of lens flop :? Guess it is time to look into a winberly gimbal mount. But I have been using it this morning with the 2x adapter, and getting 1/800sec shutter at iso 800 on a dark rainy day
I'll start a new thread an post its first light images when I get a chance :-)

Peter.

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Plus don't forget - You also get the reach of a pretty fast 600mm f/5.6: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...292266#p292266
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2005, 2:50 PM   #17
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i agree with peripatetic... get down to your local pro store and try a few of them out.. see which feels better and how much of an issue weight is going to be..

NHL mentioned the 100-300 4.0 ex dg.. do check that one out as well, i agree with him as being a good compromise, plus it is closer to your original price range than the 120-300 or the L series canon IS's...
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2005, 11:13 PM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Guys

The faster lenses f/2.8, f/4 are always heavier... that the nature of the beast: f-stop is a ratio of the lens opening over over its focal lenght -> more glass = heavier - and that's what you are paying for PERIOD!

If you limit yourself to just f/5.6 Canon, Tamron as well as Sigma all have other lower weight lenses than the DO in the same focal range (with and without IS)

This is the same argument for the 70-200 f/4 vs 70-200 f/2.8 all over again... :-) :lol: :G
NHL 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 1:58 AM.