| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2004 10:25:40 PM · #1 |
Ok folks... my wife lost a bet and I get to go shopping! ;-b
I'm searching for a longer zoom for the Rebel. I've already got the kits lens, the 28-105, and the 50 f1.8. I need more range (mostly for wildlife/bird shots). I'm considering either the Canon 75-300 IS or the 70-200L f/4 (and maybe the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM). I could swing the Canon 70-200 F2.8, but I'm not yet willing to blow $1000 on one lens. I'm leaning toward the 75-300 for the extra reach and IS feature. Can anyone comment on the differences between these? |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 10:31:49 PM · #2 |
Get the Canon 70-200mm f/4L, it's a fantastic lens and a real bargain when compared to some of the other comparable lenses out there. Although for bird photography you'd need more than a 200mm lens, for bigger animals it will be ok because of the 1.6x crop factor, but for birds you need more.
N |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 10:32:42 PM · #3 |
Well, the 70-200 f/4L is optically far superior to the 75-300 lenses. The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is also very good. I would go with one of the 70-200̢۪s over the 75-300. The Canon is probably the best zoom lens I have ever used. The Sigma is pretty far up there too and gives an extra stop.
For wildlife/birds 200mm really isn̢۪t enough and 300mm is borderline. I would look into something like the EF 100-400 IS or the Bigma or maybe the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX or the new Sigma 80-400 OS.
Greg
Message edited by author 2004-04-20 22:38:20. |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 10:37:52 PM · #4 |
| Thanks for the comments. I think the faster 70-200 lenses somewhat compensate for the lack of IS, but I'm a little hesitant to give up an extra 100mm while spending more money. |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 10:40:54 PM · #5 |
The EF 75-300 IS is probably the worst lens Canon makes optically. At least it is the worst one I have tried and I have tried a lot of them. It is pretty soft past 200mm and suffers a lot from CA. The Sigma 70-200 and Canon 70-200̢۪s are outstanding optically.
Greg
|
|
|
|
04/20/2004 10:42:00 PM · #6 |
The 100mm you are giving up is greatly offset by the difference in the better quality of the 70-200mm f/4.0L lens.
N |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 10:49:55 PM · #7 |
| I get the hint. Canon 70-200 is the front-runner. Are there any other lenses in that $300-600 range that might be better? Tamron, Sigma, etc.? |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 10:55:38 PM · #8 |
Canon 200 mm f2.8 at 600 $ beats them all hands down:
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 11:04:44 PM · #9 |
| Good one Pitsa, though starting to get pricey. Maybe Ebay... |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 11:08:29 PM · #10 |
You might be able to get a good deal on Ebay but it can be tough. I got my EF 200mm f/2.8L from B&H used for $475 in 9 condition. I really can't tell any difference between it and my 70-200mm f/4L IS on my old 1D, 10D or my current digital rebel body. You can probably tell a difference on a 1Ds but I haven't ever tried it.
Greg |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 11:20:30 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by dadas115:
I really can't tell any difference... |
While the lenses might be very close optically, I think the speed of the f2.8 might allow me to capture action shots a little easier. I took these Saturday with the 28-105...
  |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 11:21:58 PM · #12 |
If you are looking for reach, you can also get the 1.4x teleconverter for the 70-200
|
|
|
|
04/20/2004 11:24:47 PM · #13 |
get the new canon --28mm- 300mm USM L that is brand new out.
Spned a little more the first time is my advice esp if you can. In the long run you wont have to upgrade, lose money and have a ton of extra lens., I already have 2 in that category.
I highly recommend the 100- 400mm canon IS ISM L
I use it for just about everything, but macros.
and it is great range for birds, IMO (and i like to shoot birds) a 200mm would not be long enough. |
|
|
|
04/20/2004 11:27:33 PM · #14 |
Well if you want the speed, the SIgma 70-200 has the speed and the great versitility of being a zoom.
Greg
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dadas115:
I really can't tell any difference... |
While the lenses might be very close optically, I think the speed of the f2.8 might allow me to capture action shots a little easier. I took these Saturday with the 28-105...
|
|
|
|
|
04/20/2004 11:33:44 PM · #15 |
| Ellamay- it'll take a much bigger bet before my wife allows me to spend more on a lens than the camera. I could go that route, but my next Challenge entry would be "Outside Looking In" if you know what I mean. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:28:13 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
While the lenses might be very close optically, I think the speed of the f2.8 might allow me to capture action shots a little easier. |
Only if you are going to be shooting wide-open in poor lighting conditions. If you're shooting your 2.8 lens at 4 (or higher) the majority of the time, then you might as well have gotten the f/4 lens and saved some coin. Outdoors, a fast lens isn't nearly as necessary.
That being said, I agree with everyone else, get the Canon 70-200/4L. It is a stellar lens. And... you can buy the 1.4X teleconverter down the road (as Spazmo99 suggested) and have a 100-280/5.6L. With this combo, you're no worse off in terms of maximum aperture when compared to the 75-300 (which varies from f/4-5.6) and the optical quality of the 70-200/4L really is better compared to the 75-300...
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 08:29:39. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 09:17:44 AM · #17 |
| OK- Canon 70-200/4L it is, and good suggestion, Smazmo99. Thanks to all for your help! |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 09:19:40 AM · #18 |
Sigma 70-200 + 1.4x + 2x
70-200 @ 2.8
100-280 @ 4
140-400 @ 5.6
Best deal by far! |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 01:30:30 PM · #19 |
| I f I were birding it'd be the 400 f/5.6L all the way. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 01:34:15 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
Sigma 70-200 + 1.4x + 2x
70-200 @ 2.8
100-280 @ 4
140-400 @ 5.6
Best deal by far! |
Yep, quite agree. If I had enough money for either a Canon 70-200/4L or a Sigma 70-200/2.8EX, I'd go for the Sigma..
If you ever want a 2x TC for the 70-200/4L, that's a horrible aperture you'd end up with. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 02:05:30 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I get the hint. Canon 70-200 is the front-runner. Are there any other lenses in that $300-600 range that might be better? Tamron, Sigma, etc.? |
You said birds, so:
A used Sigma f/2.8 70-210mm, $400, the 82mm filter version. This is an awesome, all metal lens, which starts a person off with a great, bright, fast base lens (specs available from me on request). Add a Tamron SP 2x Teleconverter, $200. The Sigma lens remains auto-focus with this fine teleconverter, which means the combination has good light gathering capability. The used Sigma (note 210, not 200) may have to be sent to Sigma for a **FREE** upgrade, but that is great because they tune and clean it all up like new, too. (Of course, this is the combination I use :D) And, you can still slap on a Kenko Pro 300 3x Teleconverter for a quite usable 630mm f/8.0 lens, which is really nice (required) for birds. 620mm f/8 is the best I can afford for less than $$ a lot. With a lot of money in my pocket, I would like a Sigma the 50-500mm f/4-6.3 APO EX Hyperzoom, $940, with an occasional 1.4x teleconverter, or the Sigma 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 EX OS (Optical Stabilizer) Apo, $1200, also with a 1.4x teleconverter
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 14:11:05. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 02:20:43 PM · #22 |
I think I'll stick with EddyG on this one. The Sigma 70-200 is $160 more than the Canon, and I doubt that I'd get a 2x teleconverter. If I ever need that much reach, I'll be looking for a sf 300 or 400 lens. I'm getting a few more things off my wish list... a lens hood for the 28-105, a Sto-fen Omni-Bounce for the 420ex, and maybe adapters for my telescope. It's Christmas in April!
Two more questions for this panel of experts:
1. I want to protect this lens, but B&H doesn't seem to carry a 67mm Canon UV Filter. Given the high quality optics on the 70-200/4L, is the General brand UV filter OK? Assuming I only got one, would a General brand polarizer be preferable to the UV filter?
2. I've got a LowePro Nova 1 AW camera bag, which is a snug fit for the Rebel/28-105 lens, 50mm lens and 420ex flash. I'm thinking about a LowePro 2 or 3 AW to make room for the 70-200 lens. Can anybody comment on this or suggest a better alternative (under $60)? |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 02:30:35 PM · #23 |
| grdSavant- Thanks for the suggestions. I checked them out, and unfortunately the Sigma lenses are rated fairly poorly compared to the Canon L series. The Sigma 70-200 (not 210) is pretty good, but still not quite at the the level of the Canon. Also, I don't think the Rebel can focus properly above f5.6, so the longer zooms you mentioned are moot. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 02:31:10 PM · #24 |
Do you guys think that the IS is is going to be missed if he goes with
the 70-200 = 1.4x vs the 75-300 IS. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 02:42:54 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by grdSavant:
The used Sigma (note 210, not 200) may have to be sent to Sigma for a **FREE** upgrade, but that is great because they tune and clean it all up like new, too. |
I heard a while back that Sigma was no longer re-chipping some of their older lenses to work with Canon AF. I think they have a limited number of re-chipping kits available. You might want to check that out before buying an older Sigma lens.
|
|
