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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 12, 2005, 9:53 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 69
Default

I hand hold very, very few shots, carrying a monopod and Leitz table-top tripod with me almost always. I usually shoot at f/8-f/16. I don't make a day of lugging around my DSLR and system just to have a camera at hand (I use my Canon G5 for this). Of course, less expence and weight is always a plus. I can buy the 70-200 f/4 for $549 and the 70-200 f/2.8 for $995. When one adds the tripod ring for the f/4 ($130) the difference is only $316 between the two. My understanding is that the faster lens may focus quicker and more accurately because of the increased amount of light for the system to focus with. Thoughts
csnudelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 12, 2005, 11:12 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Well - there always the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX

-> Almost comparable to the 70-200 f/4 plus the tripod ring in price, but it comes with everything: case, hood, and removeable tripod collar (and it's black too)! :blah:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2005, 11:34 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 69
Default

I have no plans to get 3rd party lenses.
csnudelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2005, 12:15 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
mrcoons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 119
Default

Like the original poster of this thread I have been considering getting a faster lens for my Rebel XT but theCanonf/2.8 lens are outside of my price range. I had been considering the Sigma lens NHL mentionedand the Sigma 28-135 f/2.8but I had seen some poor reviews of both lens. So I have kind of stalled in my research.
mrcoons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2005, 12:25 PM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

mrcoons wrote:
Quote:
I had been considering the Sigma lens NHL mentioned and the Sigma 28-135 f/2.8 but I had seen some poor reviews of both lens. So I have kind of stalled in my research.
My take on this - http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/br...ing-d&id=17307
-> It's rarely the equipment, but the reviewers (i.e. the photographers)

If you want to be technical and absolute (not subjective opinions), there's always the MTF...
Is this what you read? http://www.naturephotographers.net/mg0600-1.html
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2005, 1:10 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
mrcoons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 119
Default

I can certainly understand where you are coming from NHL. But not being the greatest photographer myself I probablytake 'reviews' too much to heart.

The reviews I read were either on http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/I don't remember which.

I'll check out the links you supplied.


mrcoons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2005, 3:53 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

The 70-200 is light enough so that you don't need the tripod ring. If you do need it then you should consider the black one which is much cheaper than the white/beige one.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2005, 3:55 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

csnudelman wrote:
Quote:
I hand hold very, very few shots, carrying a monopod and Leitz table-top tripod with me almost always. I usually shoot at f/8-f/16. I don't make a day of lugging around my DSLR and system just to have a camera at hand (I use my Canon G5 for this).
In this case, you should go with 70-200F4. f2.8 is much heavier more like my 100-400L. After carrying 100-400 fora long time, the 70-200F4 feels like nothing.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2005, 5:12 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 69
Default

"The 70-200 is light enough so that you don't need the tripod ring. If you do need it then you should consider the black one which is much cheaper than the white/beige one."

I didn't know there was a less expensive black ring that would fit the 70-200L f/4. Do you happen to know the part number?

Thanks, Craig
csnudelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2005, 6:08 PM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

mrcoons wrote:
Quote:
But not being the greatest photographer myself I probably take 'reviews' too much to heart.
... and that's the issue! A good photographer can make use of any tool, and in the right hand a lens (or camera) brand rarely matter. So this is not a good lens hey? http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=1251
http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_83597_3128crx.aspx


The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 basically boils down to weight vs features, and it's just a personal preference - This what you get for more weight (or give up for less poundage):
1. Better 'Bokeh' - to me anyway this rank as #1
2. Enable the higher precision AF sensor on the camera body (20D or above)
3. Brighter viewfinder for that polarizer
4. A 2x teleconverter is still possible because of the faster 1-stop

IMHO if you're not particular about branding the Sigma makes it a little harder to decide because it costs about the same as the Canon f/4 by the time you 'accessorize' it... Someone also mentions the warranty is like 4 to 7 times longer than the Canon, so if you 'think' you might have a problem: you are at least covered for another 4-7 years or so with the Sigma!
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 10:40 PM.