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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 19, 2006, 8:17 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Striderxl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 300
Default

I think I have narrowed my choice of new lenses down to 2 -

24-70 EX DG Sigma and either

70-200 4L or

70-300 4.5-5.6 IS.



Now I have the Sigma 70-300 Sigma lens right now and like it but think IS would be a big help,but I also know that the L is superior glass.Now they are both about the same price and they are in my price range.I want to replace my kit lens so the 24-70 should work fine for now as I dont do alot of landscape pictures.I will get a nice wide angle sometime in the future.So is the loss of 100mm worth the better optics and faster lens?I like the reach of the 300 but cant afford a betterlens just yet.I also have a 20D and I know the 200mm will become a 320mm.So does anyone have practical experience with these lenses?



Thanks for any help

Charlie
Striderxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 20, 2006, 10:13 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

I have 70-200 f4 but don't use it that often. Brand new it had some back focussing problems so I had to send to canon for repair. The pictures are awesome from it. But I might sell it for 70-200 f2.8 IS as I need f2.8 along with IS.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2006, 10:23 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

I'm not sure if this'll help a lot, but I'd tried the 70-200 4L, 70-300 IS DO/non-DO in store. So my experience is only a few minutes.

In terms of sharpness... I had a difficult time seeing any difference between the DO, non-DO and 70-200 f/4L. Contrast, imo, was not really a factor because I was indoors. My guess is that the L would be better. I tried the 70-200mm last and I had to admit, I was a little disappointed with the loss of the 200-300mm range.

Unfortunately, I had to turn the ISO up to 1600 just to get decent shutters indoors so it's difficult to see the sharpness with all the noise.

Build quality for the L is nice, but I liked the DO's build out of the three. The non-DO's build is a joke in comparison, but the optics aren't bad at all.

I've seen Steve's pictures with the 70-200 f/4L in his XT's sample pictures and I know it can perform much better outdoors than indoors. If you plan to use it mostly for outdoors (during daytime) then I think it can be a great lens. I would say the quality would be worth the loss of 100mm- You can still "tele-crop" from 200mm and it would still be a nice, sharp picture.


BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2006, 10:31 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
John at the Beach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southeastern NC
Posts: 491
Default

Maybe 2 choices here....If you choose to keep the 70-300 non IS, get a monopod for about 50 bucks...Much easier to deal with than a tripod...If you decide to go with the 70-200mm, get a 1.4x converter and you will have your 100mm back...L glass is hard to beat...I use the 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4x converter and the quality is still excellent...:?
John at the Beach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2006, 10:46 AM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

What's wrong with the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX as an upgrade path? It got to be one of the sharpest lens out there IMO (less expensive than a 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4X, and better IQ than the combo)!
What are you getting in the 70-200 f/4L??? :idea:

"The build quality of this lens is exceptional":
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...00_4/index.htm

"Overall, the build quality of this lens is very impressive":
http://www.naturephotographers.net/je1001-2.html
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2006, 1:17 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Striderxl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 300
Default

Bobbyz I would love to get the 70-200 2.8 IS but that is out of my money range for a few more years.

Boy I am going to use it out side and I think the extra 100mm might be too much to lose on bird/animal photography,but I do like the idea of the L lens being relativly cheap( I wonder why?).

John thank for the idea but I would go buy the 100-300 Sigma if I was to buy the L and the converter.

NHL right now the sigma is out of my budget if I was to get the 24-70 2.8 also.I might have to talk to the wife and see if we can stretch the budget.



Thanks Guys
Striderxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2006, 3:40 PM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Striderxl wrote:
Quote:
NHL right now the sigma is out of my budget if I was to get the 24-70 2.8 also.I might have to talk to the wife and see if we can stretch the budget.
You can stretch to an L too, but keep this test result in mind:
MTF (resolution)
The lens was capable to deliver absolutely excellent resolution figures in the MTF lab easily comparable to fix focals in the respective range. At 100mm it even scratches the sensor limits of the EOS 350D. At 200mm and 300mm the center resolution is already excellent at wide-open aperture whereas the borders remain in very good territory.
Very impressive!

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...00_4/index.htm

-> i.e. this lens is as sharp as a prime, and doesn't play 2nd fiddle to anyone!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2006, 10:59 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Striderxl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 300
Default

NHL 1 thing I am concerned about is the weight of the 100-300(3.2 lbs).I am wondering how it will do with taking nature/animal pics without a tripod?I dont normally use 1,but I guess I could start using mine more.I am looking to go and take pics of animals at a zoo soon and wonder if this is ok to take and use?



So my main question is it too heavy to use on a nice trip to the zoo or wandering in the woods?


Thanks
Striderxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2006, 2:19 PM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Striderxl wrote:
Quote:
NHL 1 thing I am concerned about is the weight of the 100-300(3.2 lbs).I am wondering how it will do with taking nature/animal pics without a tripod?
I think you're asking the wrong person... I wonder through the wood myself with the 120-300 f/2.8 @ over 5lb (and haven't use even a monopod)! :lol: :-) :G

Seriously though, I thought you want an upgraded lens:
1. The quality in the EX is clearly demonstrated by the heavier metal finish, unlike the lighter plastic/composite zooms which tend to wear (and droop) through normal use... Have you seen a plastic L???
2. You're also getting a faster lens f/4 vs f/5.6 at the long end. It may not sound like much but that's doubling the available amount of light, hence larger optics, which BTW is faster than my 100-400 f/5.6L IS also @ 3 lbs - I don't believe anyone here use this equally weighty lens with a tripod either, I actually took the tripod mount off and left it in the box (if you need to save some weight)...

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2006, 3:31 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Striderxl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 300
Default

Yes I want to upgrade to a lens I will use and enjoy and I think you talk me into this lens.Now I have to see if the wife will let me stretch the budget.I think she will though.LOL



Thanks for the info and your experience.

1 more quick question.If I get this lens and then the 24-70 2.8 EX or the Tamron28-75 F2.8XR Diis that 25 - 30 mm between these 2 lensthat I am missing a really big deal?



Thanks Again
Striderxl 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 5:27 AM.