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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 22, 2005, 9:26 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

The first pic was at 300mm without a TC.

The second was at 100mm without a TC.

This one is at 420mm or 300mm with a Sigma 1.4x TC.

All handheld.
Attached Images
 
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2005, 4:08 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

arowana wrote:
Quote:
The first pic was at 300mm without a TC.

The second was at 100mm without a TC.

This one is at 420mm or 300mm with a Sigma 1.4x TC.

All handheld.
Thanks arowana! Your info is most helpfull! The photos look very sharp (okay it isn't a 100% crop). But it looks like handheld shots are doable.
You said you used the lens for softball games, is the lens very useable for sports?

Does anyone has a photo how the lens looks connected to a XT? (20D/300D is also fine).
Timberland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2005, 5:24 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Yes this lens is very "doable" for sports. I have used it for football,softball and indoor basketball. It worked just fine. Although I must say if I was shooting mostly indoors I would get the Sigma 70-200 2.8. But I shoot mainly outdoors. Here is a 100% crop of the 3rd foto. Sorry I dont a pic of this lens connected to my camera. But I will try to get one.
Attached Images
 
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2005, 8:23 AM   #14
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I agree 100% with arowana the 100-300 f/4 is practically a prime - just check its MTF vs the EF 300 f/4 L

Actually in the 100-300 range, Sigma has them all covered:
70-300 f/4-5.6 APO - bargain floor
100-300 f/4 EX - very afforddable
120-300 f/2.8 EX - expensive (but can replace a lot of lenses)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2005, 12:27 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

arowana wrote:
Quote:
Yes this lens is very "doable" for sports. I have used it for football,softball and indoor basketball. It worked just fine. Although I must say if I was shooting mostly indoors I would get the Sigma 70-200 2.8. But I shoot mainly outdoors. Here is a 100% crop of the 3rd foto. Sorry I dont a pic of this lens connected to my camera. But I will try to get one.


Wow great detail! Do you also have a couple of nice sports shots with this lens?
So far I'm leaning towards the 100-300 F4, it really seems like a great versatile lens!
Timberland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2005, 12:33 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
I agree 100% with arowana the 100-300 f/4 is practically a prime - just check its MTF vs the EF 300 f/4 L

Actually in the 100-300 range, Sigma has them all covered:
70-300 f/4-5.6 APO - bargain floor
100-300 f/4 EX - very afforddable
120-300 f/2.8 EX - expensive (but can replace a lot of lenses)
NHL the 70-300 is not as good optically as the 100-300 is it? Of course it hasn't got the F4 constant aparture.
The 120-300 is out of my league price wise.

Would you also suggest the 100-300 F4 over the Canon 70-200 F4, considering where I'm going to use it for (travelling, soccer, some nature).
Timberland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2005, 1:21 PM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The only drawback to the 70-300 is its non-HSM drive which is somewhat slower for actions and no full-time overide of the AF (and a little bit noisier)

As to the EF 70-200 f/4 vs 100-300 EX they are both excellent lenses, you can't go wrong with either one really.
Do you really need the 300mm? if you do then it's easy to decide...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2005, 3:02 PM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
The only drawback to the 70-300 is its non-HSM drive which is somewhat slower for actions and no full-time overide of the AF (and a little bit noisier)
Is that the only drawback? Is it optically as good as the 100-300?

The 70-300 is very cheap compared to the 100-300 (4 times the price), I don't believe that the only differences are the constant F4 and the HSM funtion, or are these the only 2 differences?

I hope that the 100-300 is (quality wise) an optical superior lens.
Timberland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2005, 3:38 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 92
Default

It's comparing apples to oranges when you compare the 70-300APO v the 100-300EX. Not only price but size and image quality. The APO is arguably the best consumer tele zoom on the market in that focal range, but it is no 100-300EX. The EX is one of Sigma's absolute best; 2 pro friends of mine use it for motorsports. It is larger than the 70-200EX and at least as good optically; IMO it's better. But again, the APO is a nice, convenient and small, excellent consumer-grade lens. But it is apples and oranges. Notice the price difference? There's a reason for it.
fstopjojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2005, 3:46 PM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

Thanks for your answer Fstopjojo!

So your pro friends use the 100-300 for motorsports action, do they have any actionshots online (taken with this lens)?

I really like the photos of arowana, I hope to see a photo of the XT (or 300D/20D) attached to the 100-300. I would also love to see more action/landscape/nature/macro shots with this lens.

Thanks again!
Timberland 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 6:51 AM.