| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/10/2005 04:19:33 PM · #1 |
Wondering if anyone had comments on the following 2:
(1)SIGMA 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG MACRO Telephoto Zoom Lens
for CANON EOS
(2)Canon EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM
I have the Canon and am not happy with it at all. I'm looking for an alternative without breaking the bank.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 05:18:41 PM · #2 |
They're garbage lenses...both of them.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 05:19:13 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by deapee:
They're garbage lenses...both of them. |
that's y i'm getting a 70-200 f/4L
:-D |
|
|
|
08/10/2005 05:20:47 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by scuds:
Originally posted by deapee:
They're garbage lenses...both of them. |
that's y i'm getting a 70-200 f/4L
:-D |
Everyone I know with the 70-200 f/4 wants the f/2.8 just don't say I didn't warn ya.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 05:22:55 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by phinbob:
Wondering if anyone had comments on the following 2:
(1)SIGMA 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG MACRO Telephoto Zoom Lens
for CANON EOS
(2)Canon EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM
I have the Canon and am not happy with it at all. I'm looking for an alternative without breaking the bank. |
Varialble max aperture, wide zoom range. Why would one be better then the other? They are both build with the same inherent drawbacks.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 05:32:36 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by scuds:
Originally posted by deapee:
They're garbage lenses...both of them. |
that's y i'm getting a 70-200 f/4L
:-D |
Everyone I know with the 70-200 f/4 wants the f/2.8 just don't say I didn't warn ya. |
The thing is, my wallet is not big enough for the 2.8, LoL. |
|
|
|
08/10/2005 05:33:55 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by scuds:
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by scuds:
Originally posted by deapee:
They're garbage lenses...both of them. |
that's y i'm getting a 70-200 f/4L
:-D |
Everyone I know with the 70-200 f/4 wants the f/2.8 just don't say I didn't warn ya. |
The thing is, my wallet is not big enough for the 2.8, LoL. |
I don't know man, they're built good...I'd get a used 2.8 over a new f4
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 05:42:48 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I don't know man, they're built good...I'd get a used 2.8 over a new f4 |
I know! If only I could find a used one, in good shape.
check the prices here in Brazil:
cheapest (but reliable) store, and then B&H
70-200 2.8 IS USM - R$ 6,152.00 (converted to dollars U$ 2321.00)
70-200 2.8 IS USM - U$ 1,699.95
--------------------------------
Same deal, no IS:
70-200 2.8 USM - R$ 4,072.00 (converted to dollars U$ 1536.00)
70-200 2.8 USM - U$ 1,139.95
Quite a difference, isn't it!?
I'm buying my stuff at Paraguay. The f/4 version is U$ 500, flat!
BTW, sorry for making this an "off-topic".
It's cz I had the "gas prices" thread opened in some other window LoL! |
|
|
|
08/10/2005 06:49:12 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by deapee:
They're garbage lenses...both of them. |
Ok...so they're garbage lenses. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was looking for advice, not to be blown off with some snide remark.
Thanks for for your gracious and kind consideration.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 06:55:43 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by phinbob:
Originally posted by deapee:
They're garbage lenses...both of them. |
Ok...so they're garbage lenses. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was looking for advice, not to be blown off with some snide remark.
Thanks for for your gracious and kind consideration. |
The Canon is the better lens of the two, I'd say. However, why aren't you happy with it? That will go a long ways towards picking another lens.
Sidenote - I wish we could put users on ignore like we can threads.
M
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 07:04:32 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
The Canon is the better lens of the two, I'd say. However, why aren't you happy with it? That will go a long ways towards picking another lens.
Sidenote - I wish we could put users on ignore like we can threads.
M |
I find it to be very soft especially beyond 200mm. It's also very slow to focus, especially in low light. Maybe its me, but I just do not see sharpness. Someone told me the sweet spot was about f9 to f16 and so I try to make sure I have that with at least a 1/125 shutter speed.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 07:33:49 PM · #12 |
I was considering the Canon/Sigma/Tamron 70-300 for a cheap & light weight hiking lens. The Sigma is the best of the three from my homework as long as you get the APO DG. Both the Sigma and the Tamron are great lens for the price ($220 & $160 respectivly) but it's not hard to be good for that price.
If you are not happy with the Canon, you won't be happy with the sigma or tamron. Save your money and get a good lens.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 07:45:35 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by phinbob:
Originally posted by mavrik:
The Canon is the better lens of the two, I'd say. However, why aren't you happy with it? That will go a long ways towards picking another lens.
Sidenote - I wish we could put users on ignore like we can threads.
M |
I find it to be very soft especially beyond 200mm. It's also very slow to focus, especially in low light. Maybe its me, but I just do not see sharpness. Someone told me the sweet spot was about f9 to f16 and so I try to make sure I have that with at least a 1/125 shutter speed. |
Generally with lenses you get what you pay for... i've used the tamrom 70-300mm, f/4-5.6 once indoor shooting a bastketball game with my aunt and the pictures came out generally dreadful. I dont excpet the canon or the sigma to be much better... check some of the lens review sites to see what they have to say.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 08:12:17 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by phinbob:
Originally posted by deapee:
They're garbage lenses...both of them. |
Ok...so they're garbage lenses. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was looking for advice, not to be blown off with some snide remark.
Thanks for for your gracious and kind consideration. |
The Canon is the better lens of the two, I'd say. However, why aren't you happy with it? That will go a long ways towards picking another lens.
Sidenote - I wish we could put users on ignore like we can threads.
M |
Well...I'm sorry for sharing my opinion. And I'm sorry that you don't agree. You are more than welcome to respectfully go against it or add your remark.
You're also very much so more than welcome to simply not read any of my posts. If you see my name, just skip right on past it.
edit: the thing is...when people want to buy something cheap, it's pointless, and that's my opinion. Here's someone with a two-thousand dollar camera -- wanting to buy a two hundred dollar lens. In my opinion, he'd be better off with a nine hundred dollar camera, and a fifteen hundred dollar lens.
Message edited by author 2005-08-10 20:13:38.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 08:29:26 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by deapee:
edit: the thing is...when people want to buy something cheap, it's pointless, and that's my opinion. Here's someone with a two-thousand dollar camera -- wanting to buy a two hundred dollar lens. In my opinion, he'd be better off with a nine hundred dollar camera, and a fifteen hundred dollar lens. |
deapee's position on some issues that dpc-ers face:
stock - for it, likes alamy
microstock - against it, especially shutterstock and istock
quality equipment - the more expensive the better
cheap lenses - "they're garbage"
:-)
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 08:34:32 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
Originally posted by deapee:
edit: the thing is...when people want to buy something cheap, it's pointless, and that's my opinion. Here's someone with a two-thousand dollar camera -- wanting to buy a two hundred dollar lens. In my opinion, he'd be better off with a nine hundred dollar camera, and a fifteen hundred dollar lens. |
deapee's position on some issues that dpc-ers face:
stock - for it, likes alamy
microstock - against it, especially shutterstock and istock
quality equipment - the more expensive the better
cheap lenses - "they're garbage"
:-) |
now you got it!
seriously though...that 70-300 IS USM is $499 new...a nice, lightly used 70-200 f/4L can be had for $500 -- less if you're a good shopper.
Maybe I should have said that in the beginning...but in all seriousness, I was just sharing my opinion...no need to get defensive guys, seriously....as much as I seem like a troll, I'm not...I just don't think much before I say stuff sometimes.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 08:39:11 PM · #17 |
From what I understand (unless I'm mixing up the MANY versions of the 70-300 that Sigma has), the Sigma performs better. The Canon is for different purposes of course - the IS is invaluable to me, which is the main reason that I've kept it despite learning that the Sigma is supposedly a bit better (and much cheaper). I do assume you're talking about the Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, cuz I'm not aware of a 70-300. If you are indeed talking of a 70-300, then this whole post may be irrelevant.
And FWIW, the 300mm lenses give an effective 180mm (35mm equivalent) extra reach over the 70-200. And before anyone mentions a teleconverter, let's remember that those are almost as expensive as some of the lenses that are being considered.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 08:57:07 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by brianlh:
From what I understand (unless I'm mixing up the MANY versions of the 70-300 that Sigma has), the Sigma performs better. The Canon is for different purposes of course - the IS is invaluable to me, which is the main reason that I've kept it despite learning that the Sigma is supposedly a bit better (and much cheaper). I do assume you're talking about the Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, cuz I'm not aware of a 70-300. If you are indeed talking of a 70-300, then this whole post may be irrelevant.
And FWIW, the 300mm lenses give an effective 180mm (35mm equivalent)
extra reach over the 70-200. And before anyone mentions a teleconverter, let's remember that those are almost as expensive as some of the lenses that are being considered. |
Yes, you are correct. This is the Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. I goofed on the "70". I was drawn to the light weight and compact size of the 75-300. However, I'm very close to selling that (have only had it 3 weeks) and finding a Canon 70-200 f/4L.
I'm also considering a Canon 85mm f/1.8 and would appreciate some opinions on that one also. 85mm or 100mm?
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 09:36:02 PM · #19 |
The 85mm is supposedly one of their best primes (from what I recall - I don't own one though). The 100mm comes in a macro version (are all the 100s macro?) which obviously offers something new there if that's what you want. If you don't need the extra reach, the 70-200 is certainly superior (if not a little more costly, attention-drawing, and heavy).
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 09:43:21 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by phinbob:
Wondering if anyone had comments on the following 2: |
Originally posted by phinbob:
Ok...so they're garbage lenses. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was looking for advice, not to be blown off with some snide remark.
Thanks for for your gracious and kind consideration. |
Originally posted by phinbob:
I'm also considering a Canon 85mm f/1.8 and would appreciate some opinions on that one also. 85mm or 100mm? |
Do you really want open opinions this time, or just ones that tell you what you want to hear? I would hate to take the time to comment on something again just to have it called a 'snide remark' and then get some sort of sarcasm about the situation.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 09:57:41 PM · #21 |
Of the original three, I'd recommend the Sigma APO DG. I've had the Sigma APO non DG version; currently have Canon 55-200 II, Canon 70-200 f2.8L, and the Sigma 50-500 DG. The Sigma 70-300 is a very good lens. I have directly compared it with the Canon 75-300 on my camera and the difference is noticible. It's mainly CA though, which Canon has tons of. The Canon is also soft at 300mm, even in the center. I found the Sigma to be much better, it's an excellent consumer telephoto zoom lens. Out of the Canon, Tamron, Sigma choices, I'd go for Sigma.
More expensive lenses do not necessarily promise better sharpness. You should look at the article comparing pro vs. consumer lens in Popular Photography. Canon's $100 80-200 zoom was similar in sharpness, yes similar, to the 70-200 f2.8ISL. If you don't believe me, you should look for yourself. Sharpness was the smallest difference. The real noticible difference was in distortion, color, min. focusing distance, speed, and build quality. Some consumer zooms were just as sharp or even sharper than some pro versions.
The Canon 70-200 f4L is a nice lens and I've tried it as well. Personally, I'd either opt for a f2.8L version or go for a Sigma 70-300. The 300mm reach is very nice for candid portraits or wildlife that 200mm just can't provide. If you are looking for a 70-300mm range, a more appropriate pro versions may be a sigma 100-300 EX or the Sigma 120-300 EX f2.8 (which outresolves the Canon 70-200 f2.8 at 200mm, instead of the Canon 70-200 f4L. But these tele zooms are very expensive, a grand and two, respectively.
The Canon 85 f1.8 is another very nice lens, I've never tried it, but my best friend has it and I trust his judgement when he tells me that it's fast and sharp. However, this is a different beast than the zooms you were talking about.
In the end, you need to know the focal length range you need, the speed of the lens, and the budget you have. Most lenses are quite good now days, generally the cheaper a lens is, the more limits/restrictions it has. A good photog will realize the specific limits of a lens/equipment and make adjustments to optimize the image. Most of the time for most folks, the person behind the viewfinder is the limiting factor, not the equipment.
Message edited by author 2005-08-10 21:59:56.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 10:51:58 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by deapee:
he'd be better off with a nine hundred dollar camera, and a fifteen hundred dollar lens. |
That I would agree with 100%. If you are going to spend the kind of money you did on the body you have why would you want to put a variable max aperture do everything lens on it?
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 11:34:32 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by deapee:
he'd be better off with a nine hundred dollar camera, and a fifteen hundred dollar lens. |
That I would agree with 100%. If you are going to spend the kind of money you did on the body you have why would you want to put a variable max aperture do everything lens on it? |
OK..Look...I'm sorry I even brought this up. I'm beginning to be sorry that I even joined DPChallenge. When I did join, I didn't think it was populated by people who looked down on anyone that used a non professional piece of equipment. I never said this was my ONLY lens. It's simply a lightweight and comapct option that I'm not too happy with. I asked for opinions and actually got some good advice and opinions. For that I am thankful. What irritates the hell out of me are the few who seem to think everyone will buy an L class lens. Those are the bigots who will never understand what it means to actually take the time to help someone. Rather than trying to help, you come across as condescending.
Let's just close this thread and I'll promise to never ask that question again. I'll go elsewhere for my information. To those that have offered advice (yido, brianh, nico_blue), I thank you.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2005 11:38:19 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by phinbob:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by deapee:
he'd be better off with a nine hundred dollar camera, and a fifteen hundred dollar lens. |
That I would agree with 100%. If you are going to spend the kind of money you did on the body you have why would you want to put a variable max aperture do everything lens on it? |
OK..Look...I'm sorry I even brought this up. I'm beginning to be sorry that I even joined DPChallenge. When I did join, I didn't think it was populated by people who looked down on anyone that used a non professional piece of equipment. I never said this was my ONLY lens. It's simply a lightweight and comapct option that I'm not too happy with. I asked for opinions and actually got some good advice and opinions. For that I am thankful. What irritates the hell out of me are the few who seem to think everyone will buy an L class lens. Those are the bigots who will never understand what it means to actually take the time to help someone. Rather than trying to help, you come across as condescending.
Let's just close this thread and I'll promise to never ask that question again. I'll go elsewhere for my information. To those that have offered advice (yido, brianh, nico_blue), I thank you. |
Seriously, I'm sorry that you feel offended, but you should thank me too. I offered my opinion, which you asked for. Like I said, you don't necessarily agree with it, but it's my opinion. You have since called me a bigot, condescending, called my advice 'snide' and responded with sarcasm...still, I would be willing to offer you any advice or opinion that you were looking for.
Not to mention the fact that never once did I say I looked down on people for anything -- just that putting a 'cheap' consumer grade piece of glass on a 'upper class' camera doesn't make as much sense, to me, personally, as putting better glass on a cheaper camera. Sorry dude.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 12:03:58 AM · #25 |
Deapee... You should never forget the old adage that says: " no good deed goes unpunished".
You tried dude, but it would seem that your efforts were totally misunderstood. I do hope this will not stop you from continuing to dispense information to persons like myself.
Ray |
|
