Lens question - DPChallenge Forums

01/07/2005 03:13:15 AM · #1

I am looking for a decent long-reach telephoto lens that I would mainly use for taking pictures of wildlife and sports. I think I've settled on a decent solution, but wanted to run it past the group for feedback. My two possible solutions are:

1. Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX OS APO for $999 (at Adorama).

2. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM plus the Sigma 2x EX APO extender for $869 total.

The second option seems like the best overall value. It will give me an excellent 70-200 lens and a high quality extender that I can use individually or together with that lens to give me essentially a 140-400 f/4 lens. It has fast HSM focusing and I don't really need the OS (image stabilization) since I would almost always use a tripod.

Does anyone have feedback about these two lens options, or any other suggestions for a high quality telephoto lens with good reach for sports and wildlife that is close to this price range? Also, is the Canon extender so much better that I should get it instead of the Sigma one, despite how goofy I'll look with the black and white lens combo? :-)

Thanks!

jimmythefish

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/07/2005 03:31:37 AM · #2

200 is too short for a typical wildlife lens, though it depends on the type of wildlife. Birds, you want at least 400mm at 35mm equivalent, preferably 500 or 600 for decent framing of anything at a good distance from you. The 1.6x helps. I'd have a good look at something like the Canon 100-400, though I don't know how much better it is than the 80-400. I'd jsut rather buy Canon lenses myself, and it's a bit faster at the short end.

jimmythefish

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/07/2005 03:39:31 AM · #3

Ah, also...the 2x extender comes with a 2 stop loss, as well as noticeable quality reduction. You'd have a 140-400 f/5.6, and a mediocre one at best. The 1.4x (I have the Canon version and use it with my 70-200 but the Sigma one is probably just as good) comes with next to no degradation in image quality. I can't tell from image quality alone whether I had it on or not.

menardmam

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

01/07/2005 03:40:48 AM · #4

Best review in town...

//www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=223&sort=7&thecat=29

i will buy it anytime.. i have a 70-300 do.. i like it but will have buy this one... if i know then.... to focus motor is noisy but that it !

Message edited by author 2005-01-07 03:42:17.

brianlh

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/07/2005 03:51:47 AM · #5

don't know anything about birding, but i know you could get a canon 70-200 f/4L for less than those prices - supposed super fast AF.. plus monopod i would guess, and the separate tripod mount.. and the teleconverter.. maybe it comes out to the same after all :p

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/07/2005 04:25:36 AM · #6

Thanks for all of your feedback. I don't really plan on doing any serious birding, but I do like shooting wildlife both at zoos and outdoors. I figured that my budget would limit me to a telephoto lens that doesn't fo any farther than 300 or 400mm, which is why I came up with these two options..

And I think you're right, Jimmy - the 2x extender would give me f/5.6 throughout the whole focal range, while the 1.4x extender would give me f/4. I've never used an extender. Is the loss of quality really that significant? If so, then then 80-400 lens might be a better overall value. I could probably live with a maximum length of 280mm if the 1.4x really doesn't degrade quality at all.

I do love the thought of having an excellent 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for everyday use, but if it's not practical to use a 2.x extender with it, then I might have to deal with the heaviness of that 80-400mm lens in order to have high quality all the way throughout the focal range.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

01/07/2005 04:31:50 AM · #7

You should get this lens!

Of course you need this to go along with it. Call me crazy but I think this proves that Canon has just gone nuts. Hmmm... should I buy a new lens or just a little bit of plastic to put at the end of a lens I already have.

jimmythefish

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/07/2005 04:35:04 AM · #8

If you're just looking for a general purpose telephoto then the 70-200 might be the trick. I find that my 70-200/4L with the 1.6x crop and the 1.4x teleconverter makes for a pretty long lens...448mm equivalent on the long end. Still, the AF suffers a speed reduction with the 1.4x.

Just ask yourself what range you're most likely to use. If it's 70-200, get that and a 1.4x converter to cover longer. If you're pretty much planning to use the TC all the time, get a longer lens. The AF speed and optical qualiy will be best that way. The Sigma 100-300/4 is also a very highly regarded lens, so that might be one to consider, too, as a compromise.

I'd stay away from using a 2x converter on the shorter lenses. They were primarily designed for use with supertelephoto lenses like the 500/4L and 600/4L, which are as close to optical perfection as you can get and can afford to suffer some degradation for extreme reach.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/07/2005 04:36:24 AM · #9

Originally posted by PhilipDyer:

I could probably live with a maximum length of 280mm if the 1.4x really doesn't degrade quality at all.

It doesn't but you'll probably feel a little limited. Especially at zoos that like to put animals in semi-natural settings. I have a Sigma 100-300 f4. It's a great lens but I often feel like I want to be closer when at the zoo. For little birds in the real world it's too small.

01/07/2005 06:02:24 AM · #10

Good advice, guys. (Well, except the part about buying a $7200 lens. x-P) Thanks for your help!

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

01/07/2005 06:11:41 AM · #11

Phillip I would go for the 2. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM

I used to won that lens and it is sublime. I read many many reviews before I purchased it and they were all very good.

If you were shooting professionally then yes I guess a longer lens would be better, but then so would a better camera etc then the list is endless.

The 70-200 is also very nice and heavy, which is a good thing as it stabilizes your lens and stops camera shake more then a lightweight think one.

Also it is very large and boosts confidence :D 72mm thread if I remember correctly.

Plus it will be more versatile than a longer lens, if you get a 1.4x converter that is even more versatile.

Honestly it is a lovely lens. I have a 70-300 Nikon which I got after I sold my Sigma, as soon as I can afford it I will replace my 300 with the sigma 70-200. The extra 100mm is nice but i would prefer to have my Sigma back again.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

01/07/2005 06:24:37 AM · #12

Thanks, Jon! I've read all the reviews, and that 70-200 looks really sweet. The 80-400 seems great too, but I think the 70-200 with an extender will give me more flexibility. Now to convince my wife why I "need" all this...

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

01/07/2005 06:31:02 AM · #13

Philip, You might also take a look at the Sigma 100-300 f4, it gets excellent reviews. Off the top of my head I think it is also in the price range you have mentioned. Used with a 1.4 tc you would have a max focal length of 420, then with your Rebel's 1.6 crop factor you would have some significant reach. Can't vouch for it personally however... it was my 2nd choice behind a Canon 300/f4L prime. Good luck.

scrum8

Canon EOS-50D

01/07/2005 07:29:56 AM · #14

Phillip, these were taken with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L. The deer were semi-tame and the shot was from about 30 meters. Hope that helps.

wimbello

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/07/2005 07:42:00 AM · #15

Never used it, but this seems to be getting OK reviews:

Sigma 50-500

bod

01/07/2005 08:01:19 AM · #16

Originally posted by nova:

Philip, You might also take a look at the Sigma 100-300 f4, it gets excellent reviews.

Here's one ...
"I love this lens!" : )

It's easily the best lens in my bag. I use it with the Sigma 2x extender and although I do lose 2 stops (making it an f8) and have to focus manually, I don't believe there is that huge a loss of quality. I'm over the moon with the results I get, and it still blows away the Sigma 70-300 which it replaced.

I have to qualify this by saying that the loss of light and autofocus don't adversely affect my style of shooting, but they may do yours. For my primary use - motorsport - I always work with a slow shutter and pre-focus anyway.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/07/2005 08:03:16 AM · #17

Why not pick up a 70-300? They can be had anywhere from like $160 to upwards of a grand. That converts to a 112-480 in 35mm terms on the rebel so that'll get you plenty close for sports.

go search ritz camera for '70-300mm canon' or '75-300mm canon' and it'll bring up all the different lenses in that range for canon. Then search pbase or the internet for sample images with that lens to give you some examples as to what it's capable of. Then if you're a bargain shopper, search around for the best price.

Just my thoughts -- that extra 160 mm at the twist of the lens being available where you don't have to put a converter on seems like the only way to go (for me anyway).

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

01/07/2005 08:10:50 AM · #18

I'm in the minority (on this site at least), but I thought I'd offer a different perspective. Zoom lenses cost more, and are of poorer quality (generally speaking) than primes.

I bought the 70-200mm f4L, and I don't think I best the best decision (although, the lens is awesome). For roughly the same price, I could have gotten the 200mm 2.8L which is a better lens (faster, lighter, sharper).

If you think you will be zoomed to 400mm 90% of the time, why not consider getting a nice 300mm or 400mm prime. It could save you money, or enable you to get a Canon rather than a Sigma (not that a Sigma is bad necessarily).

You could get the 135mm f2L for $850ish and the 2x converter for another $$280ish and then you'd have 2 superb lenses (perhaps 270mm isn't enough though)