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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 27, 2005, 5:31 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

I have never used the 120-300 2.8 but NHL seems to like his a lot. If you have that kind of dough the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS and a Teleconverter or the Sigma 120-300 2.8 would be the best route to go. Either one would give you the reach and speed you desire. And even with the stops you loose on the Canon with the TC, the IS would more than make up for it.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 5:39 PM   #32
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

well the IS cannot make up for speed when you are trying to capture a moving subject..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 5:43 PM   #33
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

russperry wrote:
Quote:
3) Highest cost ($1850), only one lens needed (less carrying weight), less range (120-300mm)
May be I'm a little biais because I already have the 70-200 f/2.8 EX, but if you follow the same reasoning as your option 1: with a 1.4x - 2x TC you can get to 600mm f/5.6 with the 120-300 f/2.8 :-)

Have you price theses longer focal lenghts or even a 300 f/2.8 by itself? - It's probably the lowest cost with quite a wider range (less carrying weight) as well... just a different way to look @ it!

From one lens: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...292266#p292266
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 5:50 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Just trying to keep his options open. There is just not enough fast zoom lenses out there. Everyone would like to have a 18-600 2.8 IS that weighed 1 pound and did not cost as much as a car, but until then the 120-300 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS is the best option. IMO.
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2005, 8:27 AM   #35
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

arowana

Yeah but I bet you a 70-200 f/2.8 can't do this @ 600mm... :-) :lol: :G


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2005, 7:59 PM   #36
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
russperry wrote:
Quote:
3) Highest cost ($1850), only one lens needed (less carrying weight), less range (120-300mm)
May be I'm a little biais because I already have the 70-200 f/2.8 EX, but if you follow the same reasoning as your option 1: with a 1.4x - 2x TC you can get to 600mm f/5.6 with the 120-300 f/2.8 :-)

Have you price theses longer focal lenghts or even a 300 f/2.8 by itself? - It's probably the lowest cost with quite a wider range (less carrying weight) as well... just a different way to look @ it!

From one lens: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...292266#p292266
NHL - what I'm also considering is future buys if I keep the interest in the hobby and want to extend reach further. If I need more reach then I was thinking I could add the 80-400 OS. I'd then have the optical stabilization out to 400mm, and along with the 2x that I would already have (manual focus only I know) gets me to 800mm with OS. I'd end up with a total range of 70-800mm for about $2000, with F2.8 from 70-200, and OS from 80-800.

This would still be nearly $2000 which is more than my wife will tolerate if she were to find out:evil: but maybe the best compromise of performanceand range that I can realistically afford.
russperry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2005, 11:59 PM   #37
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

russperry

Don't get me wrong... The 70-200 f/2.8 is the right way to go - Everyone should have one! I still do and it's a joy to use indoor.

My point is the 120-300 f/2.8 EX is not that 'expensive' if you compare it to what's available in its focal range!

You're just getting a lot of glass for that price - See here: http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/lenstec3.htm

The "f-number" defines the relation between the focal length of a lens (e.g. 50mm) and the diameter of the opening of a lens (roughly the size of the entrance pupil = front element) ...
  • f-number = (effective focal length) / (clear aperture)[/*]
Compared to the 80-400 which is @ f/5.6 at the long end, the 120-300 is still only at f/4 at 420mm with a 1.4xTC -> twice the light -> twice the lens diameter (at the same focal lenght!) -> twice the cost ???

I'm sure the reach is there, but how will an 800 f/16 perform on moving subjects like the above image? You'll need the same shutter speed and OS does not help there... :O
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 10:12 AM.