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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 3, 2005, 12:54 AM   #31
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

I have finally decided on my lens, now if somebody would get around to making one I'd be thrilled :blah:

But alas, no <3lb 100-400mm f4 IS/OS USM/HSM internal zoom for me.

limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2005, 3:22 AM   #32
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

the OS works quite well on my 80-400.. i am able to constantly get sharp 1/125 shots at full zoom (equivelent to 640mm on my 20d).. which is equal to the the IS found on the 100-400L Canon, which is approx 450USD more expensive.. i am pleasantly surprised with this lenses' bokeh and colors.. beautiful..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2005, 6:30 AM   #33
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

limbiksys wrote:
Quote:
But alas, no <3lb 100-400mm f4 IS/OS USM/HSM internal zoom for me.
The aperture of a lens is actually the ratio of its focal lenght by its internal diameter :idea:

When you double a lens brightness from f/5.6 to f/4 you have just doubled its effective diameter - This in effect increases the sizes of all the glass elements inside which now requires more metal to keep it together -> Weight and cost automatically follow!!!

Manufacturers tend to maximize their profit and they are not in the business of giving us more materials if they can help it so I'm afraid this is unlikely going to happen unless someone decided to use optical plastics! :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2005, 12:04 PM   #34
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

Yea, its a dream. But that does explain why the 100-300 is 82mm. Thanks.

Interesting, optical plastics... While I can see how many people would find that idea disturbing, it does not sound so bad. Considering, I am able to see mostly due to the miracle of optical plastics and I see the world through them every day. It is what makes things look sharp to me, so perhaps my "View" of the subject is skewed.
limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2005, 11:07 AM   #35
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

I'm beginning to see why the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is so outstanding.
Unfortunatley, because of the formula previously described it is expensive, has 105mm filters, and weighs a ton!
limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2005, 1:37 PM   #36
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

limbiksys wrote:
Quote:
I'm beginning to see why the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is so outstanding.
Unfortunatley, because of the formula previously described it is expensive, has 105mm filters, and weighs a ton!
Well it all depends on how much value you see in a 300mm @ f/2.8...

1. It's actually 1/2 the price of an equally weighted EF 300 f/2.8 L, but much more flexible in it's use because it can get up close - unlike the fixed prime!

2. I originally bought this lens just for outdoor portraits work (It's DOF is almost nil - even less than my 85mm f/1.2 L), but I've found out I can shoot other stuffs with it (handheld BTW): http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...292266#p292266

3. This lens is also slowly becoming a favorite for fast action shots:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=30682
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=32296

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2005, 5:54 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

ARE YOU SERIOUS, IT TAKES 105MM FILTERS?I bet those filters cost a fortune.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2005, 9:48 PM   #38
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

arowana wrote:
Quote:
ARE YOU SERIOUS, IT TAKES 105MM FILTERS?I bet those filters cost a fortune.
Actually quite affordable
http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;j...28SG105CP%3D29

A smaller B+W or Heliopan would cost more: http://www.adorama.com/BW77CPLWM.html
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2005, 4:32 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Wow!!! And I thought my 82mm filters were big. I am going to have to check that lens out. It has to be a monster.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2005, 7:51 AM   #40
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

arowana wrote:
Quote:
Wow!!! ... I am going to have to check that lens out. It has to be a monster.
Actually that title still belongs to the Canon EF 300 f/2.8 L @ over 250mm in diameter :-)
... and its rear mount filter does not cost any less!

Don't get me wrong the EF 300 f/2.8 L is the sharpest lens in Canon arsenal - just check its MTF and you'll see what perfection looks like. It's just not as flexible for 'my' need and if you were to order the lenses in this focal range according to the MTF's for sharpness:
1. Canon EF-300 f/2.8 L
2. Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX <- $800-900 ???
3. Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX
4. Canon EF-300 f/4 L

The Sigma 100-300f/4 EX clearly leads the pack in term of value - It's practically a prime as compared to the EF-300 f/4 L. One can always say the IS of the 300 f/4 L is worth the higher cost, but then can one zoom-out when the actions get too close?
It's just not as versatile and also remember action and IS do not mix
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 11:05 AM.