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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 11, 2006, 8:55 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Default

Maybe it´s unrealistic to believe, that you can cover your tele needs in one single lens? shooting mostlyhandheld?

Do I have to buy one telezoom for sportand another lens fpr nature instead?

Riding and nature have higher priority than soccer. Helpful information if I have to cover everything in one single lens!!
Cyberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 10:24 AM   #12
spy
Senior Member
 
spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
Default

One thing that always helps with such a delema is to go to a camera store and 'test drive' all the lenses that appeal to you. Some stores have very cheap rental rates and it is a wise decission to take one or two of these lenses overa weekend to find which one your going to pour your hard earned money into. It's great to get good quality advise from people that own these lenses but when it comes right down to it, your needs and shooting habits and desires are custom fit for you.

Rental rates for the weekend on these lenses are between $25 - $75 bucks (Canadian) but hey who cares if the lenses your about to buy is somewhere between $1400 and $2200.

A lens I have heard about is the Sigma Bigma 4 - 6.5, 50 - 500mm. In Canada, it sells for $1450. I went and strapped it on my 20d and took a couple shots at full zoom and compared it to a Canon 100 - 400 and took the same shot. I see that the Sigma is just slightly sharper and the colors are richer in tone compared to the Canon. If you look closely at the electrical wire coming out of the wall where the "L" is you can see the sigma lens picks up the detail of that wire...canon falls short and does not pick up that detail.

Below are these two shots, cropped just a bit and noise removed. No other editing was done and no sharpening.

#1 Sigma 50 - 500mm, full zoom cropped.
Attached Images
 
spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 10:26 AM   #13
spy
Senior Member
 
spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
Default

#2. Canon 100 - 400, full zoom, cropped in to match the reach of the 500.
Attached Images
 
spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 12:52 PM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Cyberboy wrote:
Quote:
Maybe it´s unrealistic to believe, that you can cover your tele needs in one single lens? shooting mostlyhandheld?

Do I have to buy one telezoom for sportand another lens fpr nature instead?

Riding and nature have higher priority than soccer. Helpful information if I have to cover everything in one single lens!!
Cyberboy - every lens decision is a compromise. The answer to your question is: do you want a single lens that does a decent job of both but not a great job at either? Or, do you want to improve the quality of one type of photography and buy a lens specific to that area? Only you can answer that.

In general, a GOOD sports lens should be f2.8 or f4.0 if it's a long enough focal length. But guess what? For wildlife, a lot depends on your shooting considerations. It sounds more like you want a single lens that does pretty good at both. If that is the case, I think something like the Canon 70-300 DO might be a really good option for you. It's only 720 grams vs 1310 for the 70-200 2.8 (or 1380 gram for 100-400 or 1440 for Sigma 100-300 f4) and I've seen some good wildlife shots from it. The only thing is: you're not going to be doing either sports or wildlife shots in low light with this lens. But you apparently place a higher weighting on portability than on low light capability. The Sigma 70-300 is only a fraction of the cost (around $200 I think) and is a very good budget lens. But, I think the 70-300 is the best 'good at both but not stellar at either' lens if weight is an issue for you. You should know that the 70-300 won't do well with a TC thoughso you're limited there. If you want more than 300mm reach in the lens you need to consider something heavier like the Sigma 100-300 f4.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 1:24 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Default

John G

I have alreadyconsidered the EF 70-300 DO IS - but some reviews have somehowscared me - but I have seen some great shots from this lenstool.

If it is not posible to get VERY GOOD to EXCELLENT image qualtiy from a light / portable lens - then I prefer IQ higher.

Let me put my question this way: Do you think the EF 70-200 f2.8 + TC 1.4x will perform better than the EF 70-300 DO IS for me? If the EF 70-200 f2.8 +TC is the better then I will go for this.

But I wonder why you don´t think the EF 100-400 will do well for me? I don´t like the price neither- but it can also be very expensiveto buy more lenses and find out, that they don´t give you the reach or the quality,which you are looking for.

Thanks John for your qualified answers!




Cyberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 1:43 PM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

The 70-200 2.8 plus 1.4 is definitely going to give you better quality and more flexibilitythan 70-300.

Ok, now a specific comparison of 70-200 2.8 + TC vs 100-400. Both will give you exceptional IQ.

70-200 + optional 1.4TC

pros:

  • wider at the short end (70mm vs 100mm equates to 112mm vs 160mm on a Canon 1.6 crop body). Are you going to want the extra 48mm? [/*]
  • offers ability to shoot 200mm (320mm equiv) at f2.8 - 2 stops faster than the 100-400. Are you going to ever need the extra shutter speeds this buys you? [/*]
  • slightly lighter. [/*]
  • faster focusing in lower light situations - 100-400 hunts more in low light (for instances where you want low light shots but don't need to stop action). [/*]
  • Can use a TC to get a 98-280 f4 lens (157mm-448 equiv) and still have extremely high quality images.
cons:
[/*]
  • 200mm is short for many wildlife situations and for soccer (don't know the distances involved in the riding). [/*]
  • adding / removing the TC [/*]
  • getting image stabalization costs a lot more $$
100-400 pros:
[/*]
  • twice the reach of the basic 70-200. Still 120mm more reach than 200 plust TC [/*]
  • has IS which can be beneficial since you like to hand-hold your shots. [/*]
  • Can take a 1.4x TC with loss of autofocus and some softness but still very useable results.
cons:
[/*]
  • 5.6 aperture means it will hunt in low light and won't get fast enough shutter speeds for active wildlife or for sports. [/*]
  • lose some wide-angle on theshort end.[/*]
So the trade-off between these two options are the 70-200 plus TC gives you ability to shoot a little wider and have a low-light option and better bokeh. The 100-400 gives you a lot more reach while still maintaining high IQ. It's a tough choice - only you can say what is most important to you. Probably the reason why so many people own both :G




JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 2:15 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Default

Thanks very much JohnG. for your detailed answer.

Now only I can make the final decision. .All the answers I have got have been very helpful.

I think my choice will be between the EF 70-200 +TC and the EF 100-400.







Cyberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 7:52 PM   #18
spy
Senior Member
 
spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
Default

Just before you buy either one, I stopped at the Camera Store today and tested the Sigma 70 - 200 2.8 with 2x TC - Non IS (sigma doesn't make one) and compared it to the Canon 100 - 400 IS both are hand held and both shots are cleaned up for noise ONLY.

Shots are handheld. Sigma is the winner AGAIN.

#1 Sigma 70 - 200 2.8, 2x TC, Hand held






Attached Images
 
spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 7:53 PM   #19
spy
Senior Member
 
spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
Default

#2. Canon 100 - 400 4 - 5.6 IS, Hand held


Attached Images
 
spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 9:49 PM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

spy wrote:
Quote:
... I stopped at the Camera Store today and tested the Sigma 70 - 200 2.8 with 2x TC - Non IS (sigma doesn't make one) and compared it to the Canon 100 - 400 IS
Out of curiosity is that the new Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX 'MACRO' or just the DG?
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 5:14 PM.