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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 24, 2006, 4:44 PM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

The missing piece:
Attached Images
 
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2006, 6:55 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

I have two of the lenses, 28 - 135 IS and the 70 - 200 F4 L. Most of the Canon shooters in the articlewere are using 5Ds (landscapes). Now if I can shoot like them and go to the locations, I'd be very happy. I really like the 28 - 135 IS in the 35 - 120 mm range, I think it's almost as sharp as an L.

NHL,

I can see the potential of the 120 - 300 F2.8 for modeling based on your photo, it's outstanding. What camera are you using? I definitely will wait until I have the extra money for a faster lens, even if I don't go for the Sigma. How's the focus speed and more importantly, how many times do you use the 100 - 400 L since you have this one?

Bill
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2006, 7:31 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,699
Default

i have two lenses in my bag at present... a Tamron SP 24-135, and a Sigma EX 80-400. if i can't do it with one of those, it just won't get done. the only shortcoming so far is that there have been a fair number of times when 400mm isn't enough, even on a 1.6x body. on the other hand, i don't need a pintle mount and a Humvee to carry it on, either! :lol:
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2006, 11:05 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 238
Default

NHL and squirl033,

How good is Tamron SP 24-135? I want to use it on the FF camera and don't want to buy Canon 24-105L due to its high price. I have read many reviews with good recommendations for Tamron. What will be your recommendations?

harana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2006, 1:59 AM   #15
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
I want to use it on the FF camera and don't want to buy Canon 24-105L due to its high price.
You mean on your film camera right?

Otherwise I'd suggest you'd be rather better off going for a cheaper body and more expensive lenses. Getting a 5D and then going cheap on the lens is absolutely the wrong way round.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2006, 5:38 AM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

wsandman1 wrote:
Quote:
NHL,

I can see the potential of the 120 - 300 F2.8 for modeling based on your photo, it's outstanding. What camera are you using? I definitely will wait until I have the extra money for a faster lens, even if I don't go for the Sigma. How's the focus speed and more importantly, how many times do you use the 100 - 400 L since you have this one?

Bill
I still use the 10D! :sad:
The 120-300 f/2.8 EX is very fast in AF as compared to the 100-400L especially when tracking bird in flight (even with the 100-400L limit switch on!)...

I use the faster lens when I go out early in the morning or late afterboon, or when I know I can't get the reach with the 400mm - I came back to the same spot for theses images when the 100-400L required 'digital' crop: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=11

-> 600mm @ f/5.6 (120-300 f/2.8 with a 2x TC) and be able to handhold - Most other lenses with this kind of reach requires a different shooting style from a stationary tripod/gymbal!






peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
... Otherwise I'd suggest you'd be rather better off going for a cheaper body and more expensive lenses. Getting a 5D and then going cheap on the lens is absolutely the wrong way round
Peri is right of course - Check out the new Sigma 50-500 EX in 4/3 mount :idea:
-> You're effectively getting a 100-1000mm reach at a relatively inexpensive cost on a Olympus 8Mp dSLR (2nd body anyone???) which has a 2x crop factor... :?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2006, 7:52 AM   #17
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Yeah, wow! And with the new Leica 4/3 lenses coming....
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2006, 8:11 AM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

... Or stick with 'film'! :lol: :-) :G
http://www.forbes.com/business/globa.../0424/066.html
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2006, 9:03 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Striderxl
Neither Art Wolfe and Linde Waidhofer need f2.8 lenses.
When you take landscape photos, f2.8 is almost certainly wasted. You shoot at f/8... f11 or even higher. Carrying the extra weight of an f2.8 lens makes it harder to hike around to those amazing places they both go. I'm sure they would rather carry more water and other supplies (or just go lighter.) The 70-200 f/4 lens is quite popular with certain styles of landscape photography - and a damn nice lens in general.

Now, if you said Brian Small, Arthur Morris, or Tom Vizo didn't use f/4 or f/2.8 lenses then I'd be surprised. They shoot wildlife (some of the best in the US) and they need the larger aperture and sharpness wide open than lenses like the 28-135 just don't have.

So while it is interesting to see what the pros carry in their bags, you have to apply that information to what they shoot. Landscape photographers don't need large apertures to stop action, they need quality at small apertures for a large depth of field.

I do agree that many people who have f2.8 and L lenses don't need them. Lenses are tools and some tools are overkill for the job they are put to. What surprises me is that Art uses the 17-40 f/4. I've got it, it's a damn fine lens. But most models of it have barrel distortion issues at the wide end that are annoying. Maybe he kept exchanging it to get a good one?


The 80-400 Sigma has improved since it came out. I know of several people on another forum who got it very early on and returned it within a few weeks. The sharpness wasn't what they wanted (they have high standards) and the AF wasn't up to their needs (as in "it's a tool and I can't achieve what I want".)

My guess is that Sigma silently improved it and slipped these into production as lately I've seen more people happy with it (although this could be because of these new people's standards being lower... or maybe it's my guessed-at improvements. No way to tell... I can say that NHL has high, but practical, standards - I'd trust his opinion.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2006, 9:39 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Bogus1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4
Default

I just got the 80-400 OS for my 20D, boy is that a big sucker.... Only used it a couple of shots in the back yard and poor lighting at that. Amazing how well it worked (OS/IS)Hand Held at 400mm backlit shots of goldfinches under my apple tree. I am going on Vacation in 2 weeks to Mont Tremblant, hope to have some shots to share.





20D

Canon 17-85 IS

Canon 28-135 IS

Sigma 80-400 OS DG
Bogus1 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 9:52 AM.