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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 1, 2005, 2:37 PM   #21
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

So, I finally got down to the local camera shop to play with a few lenses.
They are unfortunately too snooty to carry any Sigma, and they were out of the 70-200 Canons, but I did get to check out the 100-400 and that was interesting for a couple reasons:

First, it was the first time I was able to really try out IS and I am amazed...
Second, the push-pull zoom is easy enough to manage and I really like the traction/brake adjustment and the overall weight was not unmanageable, but when fully extended it becomes so long that the balance was very awkward. The other thing I realized is that I need 400mm one way or another, it was just about right. I tried the 55-200, just to get a feel for where 200mm put me and it was not even close to what I need.

As far as I understand it, the two 70-200s are internal zooms, correct? I thought I read that the Sigma was, but couldn't find anything for sure on the Canon.
limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2005, 3:59 PM   #22
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

limbiksys wrote:
Quote:
As far as I understand it, the two 70-200s are internal zooms, correct? I thought I read that the Sigma was, but couldn't find anything for sure on the Canon.
Yeap - they both are internal focus and internal zooming -> why theses lenses lenght stays constant without shifting weight

... The other thing to check out is: Will the focus hold when you zoom (i.e. parafocal in design) in/out? The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 does, but will the Canon (i.e. varifocal)? This'll become more critical when you track subject while zooming, such as zoom-out for the search and zoom-in for the shot :?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2005, 11:26 PM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
Default

Hi there. I am watching this thread with interest. I notice that it spanned about a month now.

I just got myself a Canon 20D and love it. I bought a Canon 28-200 USM for general purpose shots, and now I am seriously considering a telephoto. I hate to part with $1200 on a Canon. so I am looking at the Tokina 80-400 plus perhaps a 1.4xTC. Now has anyone used the Vivitar100-400? It is only $220 so I imagine it won't be very good. I hear from the web experts that a 500 or 600 is minimum for birds shots.
abbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2005, 2:33 AM   #24
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

abbie wrote:
Quote:
I just got myself a Canon 20D and love it. I bought a Canon 28-200 USM for general purpose shots, and now I am seriously considering a telephoto. I hate to part with $1200 on a Canon. so I am looking at the Tokina 80-400 plus perhaps a 1.4xTC. Now has anyone used the Vivitar100-400? It is only $220 so I imagine it won't be very good. I hear from the web experts that a 500 or 600 is minimum for birds shots.
Well, two things to consider with the 20D:
First, the multiplier that is created by the camera puts you at 640mm with the 400mm lens. Second, as far as I understand it, you may run into trouble with a tc on that lens. Not only will you need lots of light, but I believe auto focus does not work correctly if the tc was to push the lens over f5.6, and in this case it would.

A constant f4 would take a 1.4xTC fine, which is why I was originally looking at the Canon 70-200 f4, as it is a wonderful lens. It just does not cover the distance I need it to, but I can safely put a 2xTC on an f2.8, so that is what I am thinking may work best and remain somewhat versatile.

limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2005, 5:34 AM   #25
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

limbiksys wrote:
Quote:
A constant f4 would take a 1.4xTC fine, which is why I was originally looking at the Canon 70-200 f4, as it is a wonderful lens. It just does not cover the distance I need it to, but I can safely put a 2xTC on an f2.8, so that is what I am thinking may work best and remain somewhat versatile.
IMO you'll be more satisfied with the 100-300 f/4 + 1.4x TC than the 70-200 f/2.8 + 2xTC if your goal is to stay around 400...

This is the MTF of the EF-300 f/4L IS USM:


as compared to the 100-300 f/4 EX:

i.e. -> The sigma is as sharp wide open than the Canon prime closed down to f/8 (blue curves). The black curves are for the Canon @ f/4 which are inferior to the Sigma red and green which are @ f/4



For the 500mm range - It's hard to beat either the Sigma 50-500 or the Tamron 200-500 in price/quality. Both are a mere 1/3 stop less than the popular f/5.6 but the Tamron is lighter; However the Sigma has the ultrasonic so take your pick!

fstopjojo has done some very good job here: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/3telezooms
or here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=14030243

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2005, 10:25 AM   #26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
Default

Yes, the Sigma 100-300/f4 does get good reviews. Which 1.4xTC would you recommend?
abbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2005, 10:29 AM   #27
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I would keep in black on black (Sigma), but if you prefer black on white ... :-)


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2005, 3:53 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Just to put my 2 cents in. I first bought the Canon 70-200 f/4 lense for the tele-photo end of my photography. Although it did produce great images it wasnt long enough. And the cost of a Canon 1.4 tc was out of the question since I had already spent 600 dollars on the lense with shipping. So I sent the Canon back and got the 100-300 f/4 Sigma with a 1.4 tc for about 700 dollars with shipping. And I abosolutly love this combo. The tc doesnt degrade quality or speed. And without the crop factor of Digital you have a 420mm lense at 5.6. It is a tad bit heavy but you can still get great action shots without a tripod.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2005, 4:26 PM   #29
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i recently acquired the sigma 80-400 4.5-5.6 OS. this should be on your list if you plan on using your 100-300 with 1.4 tc on it most of the time. it covers a very useful focal range, its built like a tank. images are crisp and oh the color, very nice saturation and contrast. plus with the OS, you can handhold down to about 1/125 consistantly at full zoom. very versatile long zoom.

sure the 100-300 f4.0 is sharper, as its one of ths sharper lenses made today, but i would imagine much of the difference would be negated by the teleconverter. and both will have 5.6 maximum aperture.

the only drawback is the AF speed is not as fast as the HSM on the 100-300. it is faster than a micro-usm such as the 75-300 IS USM, but is not up to speed with the ring type USM/HSM.


Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2005, 9:14 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Hards80

How well does the OS work on the 80-400? I have been wanting to try it out but these lame a-- stores around here do not carry it.
arowana 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 11:06 AM.