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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 25, 2005, 11:04 AM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

Anyone?
Timberland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2005, 12:54 PM   #22
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Timberland wrote:
Quote:
Anyone?
FYI - It's all here http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/100300mmf4exhsm
... and also on Photosig.com


Landscape on a telezoom?
The 100-300 f/4 is actually sharper than my 120-300 f/2.8 according to the MTF... :lol: :-) :G







Theses lenses are really not macro's; however for close-up...







... and nature with a 1.4x TC on (wide opened):


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2005, 2:33 PM   #23
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

Wow, nice photos NHL! The close-up of the dragonfly is beautiful (so are the others)!
Where was the beautiful landscape shot taken?

Thanks for your reply!

Timberland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2005, 6:45 AM   #24
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Timberland wrote:
Quote:
Where was the beautiful landscape shot taken?
In Paradise (at least that's what some folks call them) - The Virgin Islands :-)
The 1st picture was off Red Hook in St. Thomas and here's one with a 'wider' view from St. John (see my other post for equally breathtaking view from the British islands)


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2005, 9:55 AM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

TheVirgin Islands aha.Beautiful NHL!

Now I've got another question (maybe silly).

I think my choice is between the Sigma 100-300 and the Canon 70-200. With my XT the focal lenths are 160-480 (Sigma) and 112-320 (Canon).

I'm wondering if I need the 300mm (it's pretty expensive here in The Netherlands:sad. But I'm not sure. Can somebody post examples of the different focal lengths (from the same spot 100mm, 200mm, 300mm).

Is the 200mm (320mm Canon on my XT) long enough for a safari or for sports (inside a soccerstadium). Or is the 300mm required in these cases?

Thanks in advance!
Timberland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2005, 1:28 PM   #26
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Timberland wrote:
Quote:
I think my choice is between the Sigma 100-300 and the Canon 70-200. With my XT the focal lenths are 160-480 (Sigma) and 112-320 (Canon).
IMO they're both excellent lenses:
If you add the price of a Canon 1.4x TC to the 70-200 f/4 you have the cost of the 100-300 f/4

... with the 70-200 f/2.8 EX priced right in the middle - I'm not helping am I??? :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2005, 1:51 PM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

Thanks NHL, I guess...

No, you're not helping at all! :G

I (think I) like the weight of the Canon, but the Sigma has 100mm more at the long end. IfI'll use the extender on the Canon than it's the same price as the sigma and I'll lose a f-stop. :?But with the Sigma I'm not sure if I can handhold (steady) such a beast (another problem is that I just can't go to a localstore to try (like you guys in the US), because all the "photo shops" here have absolutely no equipment, it's pathetic!).

I want a nice telezoom, and I don't want to buy a new one in a year because the tele-end isn't long enough.

I just don't now if I really need the 300mm. That's way I would like a comparison between the focal lenghts, can someone (NHL? :lolshow me the differences please?

Thanks again!
Timberland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2005, 5:44 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

This is not going to much help either but trust me, you will never have "enough zoom". When I started out all I wanted was 200mm. Then 300mm. Then with a 1.4x TC on my 100-300 I was sure 420mm would be plenty. Now I am trying to decide between the 80-400 and the 50-500. It probably wont stop untill I have a Hubble Telescope on my 20-D. The main question you need to ask is" What can I be Happy with now, based on what I can afford". Because in 6 months or less you will be wanting something with more reach. Try deciding on a lens that has a long focal lengthwith a 2.8 to 4 aperature thats in your price range and when you feel that " I wish I could get just a little closer" feeling, go out and buy a teleconverter. Just my 2 cents worth.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 3:35 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
polarwasp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 167
Default

Quote:
all the "photo shops" here have absolutely no equipment, it's pathetic!).
Hey, you can try a shop on the wagenstraat (crossing with the Nieuwe Molstraat) in The Hague (well, if you are in the area of course :roll. I am pretty sure last time I walked in they had the SIGMA 70-200 f2.8 in stock .

http://www.hafo.nl/

My 0.02€...
polarwasp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 4:58 PM   #30
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11
Default

I'm new to the digital SLR game havingmoved from film SLR many years ago to digital point n shoot.I've got a Rebel XT with the kit lens, the 50/F1.8 II and a couple of borrowed lenses (old Tamron 200-400/F5.6 and a Canon 100/F2).

I've been going through the same thought processes on lens combinations.I'm taking pictures of my kids in two sports right now - outdoor lacrosse and hockey.I need a fast zoom for the hockey and quite a bit of reach to adequately capture the lacrosse action onits large playing surface.

After several days of taking test shots I just don't think F4 is good enough for those indoor shots - if it was I'd probably go with the Sigma 100-300/F4 and be done with it.

Since I think I need 2.8 as a minimum for the indoor sports I have considered three approaches:

1) Sigma 70-200/F2.8 DG for hockey and a 2x TC to get out to 400mm at F5.6 for the outdoor lacrosse.

2) a fast prime (Canon 100mm or 135mm/F2.0) for the indoor shots and a longer zoom for outdoors (maybe Sigma 80-400 OS)

3) Sigma 120-300/F2.8

Principal Pros/cons (at least as I see it)

1) Lowest cost (~$950), covers wide range (70-400mm), flexibility of zoom, some loss of quality with 2x TC

2) Middle cost (~$1300 with Canon 100/F2, $1800 with 135/F2), wide range (80-400mm), OS should help for long range shots, loss of flexibility with prime lens for indoor game, need to carry two lenses.

3) Highest cost ($1850), only one lens needed (less carrying weight), less range (120-300mm)

I think I'm going to go for option 1 based on my assessment above.
russperry 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 5:37 PM.