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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 28, 2006, 1:52 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

To the original poster,

While you may be happy with either of the two 70-200 mm lenses, you obviously wont realise your increased photographic capabilitiesthat IS providesif you get the Sigma. IS is incredibly beneficial. The canon does focus faster and has abetter build quality also. Personally I also find the picture rendition, flare andbokeh qualitiessuperior.

The Canon 70-200 IS 2.8, is a fantastic lens. I use it extensively. I'm not shooting that much sport all the same though.Still the IS is still beneficial in a panning mode don't forget. So in essence this lens is also designed with moving sports in mind.

I shoot street documentary and portrait with this lens. Its simply the bestlens in this focal range on the market that many thousands of pro and amateur photographers alike have decided worth the extra expense. Provided you don'tdrop it down a flight of stairs its a lens that will last your life time and whoever you pass it on too. (still get insurance, others may want it too.. ;-)

Good luck with whatever lens you eventually go for.

LB



LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2006, 5:53 AM   #12
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

picturethis62 wrote:
Quote:
... If you added the 1.4x onto the 120-300 wouldn't that take a bit away from the picture? After using my lens last night, I find I still like the long range. Any thoughts on this, if it makes sense.
Here's some shots with the 120-300mm with a 2x teleconverter (which is worst than a 1.4x) - all handheld of course:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=11


... and IS is not a requirement for panning to some folks (IS is for 'sissy' IMO): :lol: :-) :G
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...155637#p155637
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2006, 12:12 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 64
Default

Thanks LBoy,

You kind of helped me make up my mind. Because of the price of the L lens and because I never in my wildest dreams thought of paying near 2G's for a lens, I kept trying to find reasons to not get this lens. A few days ago my wife asked me which one are you going to get, I was like, "I think I'm gonna go with the Sigma". She goes, "your stupid". What? She said exactly the same thing you said, It something you'll have the rest of your life. So, yeah the Sigma isn't a bad lens at all, but the canon is better. So Canon it is. Just have to save for a few months, thenget that insurance. I had my last camera and cam stolen up in Canada a few months ago. So I know what you mean by other people liking your stuff.

Thanks,

Bill
picturethis62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2006, 12:18 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 64
Default

Those are nice pictures NHL, especially with the 2xconv. Maybe a nice 120-300mm after the 70-200:-). Never enough toys!

Bill
picturethis62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2006, 5:23 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

No problem Bill,

The best lenses, and an intelligent wife too? Well what morein life would you want?



Glad to have been of some help...

LB
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2006, 10:43 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
John at the Beach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southeastern NC
Posts: 491
Default

Hey Spy....Is it just me...The Canon 70-200mm shot looks much sharper than the Sigma 120-300mm...If in fact the Canon is sharper, couldn't you crop that pool image and get the same or better results than the 300mm....Just curious....
john
:roll:
John at the Beach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2006, 11:14 AM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

John at the Beach wrote:
Quote:
Hey Spy....Is it just me...The Canon 70-200mm shot looks much sharper than the Sigma 120-300mm...If in fact the Canon is sharper, couldn't you crop that pool image and get the same or better results than the 300mm....Just curious....
john
:roll:
John - IMO, cropping is a poor substitute for reach - especially if you are at the limit of the 'shorter' lens and it is focusing near infinity. You also get better bokeh from the added 100mm at the same aperture. So, while I agree that the Canon 70-200 2.8 is, in fact, a sharper lens you'll get worse results in the long run if you really need the extra 100mm and substitute cropping for the optics. Unfortunately, canon doesn't make a zoom lens with 300mm and 2.8 - just the prime and it's $4000 - twice the price of the sigma (of course it's a better lens than the Sigma in quality and focus speed by all accounts too).

Also, if you shoot sports in low light at high ISO you really need to reduce your cropping to a bare minimum so doing heavy crops will not work.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2006, 11:40 AM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

John at the Beach wrote:
Quote:
...The Canon 70-200mm shot looks much sharper than the Sigma 120-300mm...If in fact the Canon is sharper,
The Canon shot has the benefit of the better lighting (flash may be) -> hence better color/contrast...
Clearly this is not an apple to apple comparison :idea:
It looks to me like the 2nd Sigma shot is underexposed (because of the backlit in the water reflection below the swimmer chin) and in no way reflects the excellent quality of the lens!

-> but I agree with JohnG if you need 300mm there's no way you can get to it with a 200mm and have the same wide open bokeh of an f/2.8 @ this focal lenght... :?
i.e. just check the lane dividers and observe how the 'subject' pop out better from their respective backgrounds (The 1st shot is all 'cluttered' by comparison to the Sigma).
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2006, 11:53 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
John at the Beach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southeastern NC
Posts: 491
Default

JohnG/NHL.....
I totally agree with both of you....More zoom is the way to go and much better
than a crop job....Just a curosity question....
:O
John at the Beach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2006, 12:32 PM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The 1st picture is a snapshot - while the 2nd one is an image one could have framed (sorry about the editing) if the exposure was correct...

JohnG's better 'bokeh' of the 300mm viewpoint -> you can not get this kind perspective no matter how good a 70-200 f/2.8 can be: :lol: :-) :G
Attached Images
 
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 9:18 AM.