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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 30, 2005, 12:25 PM   #21
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
I wonder why Canon built the The 17-85mm as an F4 lens and not an F2.8 lens? Was it to keep costs low? Size of the lens small?
Yes and yes.

Quote:
I'm not sure I'd use the 17-85 for sports because of the F4 max aperture. Unless someone has some good sports shots using this lens
The IS compensates very effectively for landscape work, but it's not suitable for action in poor light.

However for outdoor sports the f4-f5.6 aperture is really not an issue - if the light is decent then the aperture is fine, particularly considering ISO400 is so very good on the 20D. If you are concerned about very shallow DOF then you'd be better off using a 70-200/300 of some description. Remember that focal length has a much bigger impact on DOF than aperture.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2005, 5:30 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Peripatetic,

I shoot some sports in low lit gyms and indoor track facilities, so I'm usually shooting at about F2.8, 1/250th and ISO1600 or ISO3200.

If I shot at F4, I'd be about one stop underexposed.

Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2005, 7:06 AM   #23
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,543
Default

The f/2.8 also get you a more accurate focus (even if you shoot at f/5.6) - especially in dimmer light where it's faster too...
NHL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2005, 11:24 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 155
Default

[email protected] wrote:
Quote:
I wonder why Canon built the The 17-85mm as an F4 lens and not an F2.8 lens?

Was it to keep costs low? Size of the lens small?
I think you answered your own question. Yes and yes.

The 17-85 is already pretty large, probably due to the IS mechanism. Making it one stop faster (at both ends of the zoom? 17-85 F2.8-F4, I presume.) would make it really big and heavy. If you are suggesting 17-85mm with a constant F2.8, that would be--if it were even possible--a 5 pound, $2,000 lens.

This wasn't intended as a sports lens but rather the 1.6 equivalent of the popular 28-135, a general purpose everyday lens. For sports you need IS with "mode 2", as the standard IS will not work properly for panning, which you need for sports, generally.
wburychka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2006, 3:28 PM   #25
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Although I'm a lifetime Nikonite I can help you out when it comes to lens combinations for the amateur on a budget. Personally, if I were you I would ditch the kit lens. Lenses from the the top two contenders (Nikon and Canon) are always overpriced. Although image stabilization is a nice perk, I can remember when lenses didn't have "brains" and we manually focused cameras. Back to the point. I think you should consider getting two lenses :

1) A prime lens 28mm, 35mm or 50mm @/1.8 or 1.4 (remember the focal length multiplier and get what is best for you). Wide open these lenses are extraordinary. Best bet for shooting informal and formal portraits of children. I use a 85mm/1.8 with my D70s for head and shoulder portraits.

2)I think that a 18-200mm (equivalent to 28-320mm)zoom is an excellent idea for the family/amateur photographer. Your needs range from wide angle to telephotoso buy the one lens that fits.The long end will be very useful when shooting those soccer games or other outdoor sports. I agree with PERIPATHETIC about the aperature. It won't make a difference outdoors. Finally, after you take your first family vacation with a 18-200mm lens (after all, that's all you'll need) you'll see you've made the right decision. One more thing, check out the Tamron DiII 18-200mm, I've heard that the Sigmas are poorly constructed!!!!rings falling off and things like that.
nikon_is_king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2006, 6:13 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
JohnReid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 734
Default

The Sigma EX series are just as good as Canon L lenses. I've also never heard any problems about the build quality of the cheaper Sigma lenses
JohnReid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2006, 7:07 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 155
Default

JohnReid wrote:
Quote:
The Sigma EX series are just as good as Canon L lenses. I've also never heard any problems about the build quality of the cheaper Sigma lenses
I don't know that I'd go that far the Sigma kudos. I have the 50-500mm EX "Bigma", and it is very good. I also have the 12-24mm EX, and it is awful. It's an F4.5, but if you use anything under F11 (it usually takes F13 for a decent picture), it is hopelessly soft especially in the corners (and that is with the 1.6 crop factor...I shudder to think how soft the corners must be on a full frame camera). The 70-300 is not an EX, but it is pretty good with no mechanical problems and good optics, too. Other than the 12-24's pitiful softness, I have no complaint about Sigma's EX lenses. They seem every bit as rugged as Canon L, although the "fit and finish" ofCanon is somewhat better.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"The thing that ruins the Sigmas for me--and that applies to other lenses, as well--is the the lack of image stabilization. I virtually never take the 50-500 along any more and take the Canon 100-400LIS instead, in spite of its shorter reach. When I shoot hand held or on a beanbag, the IS makes the difference in getting the shot or not in many cases. Sigma does make a lens with their version of image stabilization--the 80-400. When I was shopping for that range, however, I was disgusted with Sigma after six months with the 12-24, so I blew off the 80-400 in favor of the Canon which has not disappointed. As far as support goes, both companies are poor. Canon talks a better game, but in my experience, does not deliver. Sigma is difficult to contact.
wburychka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2006, 8:29 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
JohnReid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 734
Default

I based my comment on the performance of my 80 to 200 2.8 and the reviews of the 180-300 2.8. Your case with the WA is the first negative I've actually read. NFL seems really happy with his.

I agree with you regarding IS. Does anyone have the Sigma 80-400 OS that would like to give us the run down?
JohnReid 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 11:10 AM.