| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/06/2005 12:06:45 AM · #1 |
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens
whats a few steps up from this?
Message edited by author 2005-02-06 00:10:19. |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 12:08:47 AM · #2 |
I bought that one today and all I can say is OMG it rocks!
|
|
|
|
02/06/2005 12:49:45 AM · #3 |
| I believe the next step up would be the 70-200mm f/4L. If you need an extra stop or image stabilization, take a look at the 70-200mm f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lenses. |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 12:56:00 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by VisiBlanco:
I believe the next step up would be the 70-200mm f/4L. If you need an extra stop or image stabilization, take a look at the 70-200mm f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lenses. |
what he said.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2005 01:10:36 AM · #5 |
| If you feel you need a step up from the 75-300 the next step depends on why you feel the need. What do you want to improve on? Image quality, then head toward the 70-200 length. The canon f4 is optically fine, and costs about the same as the Sigma 2.8 also quite nice . If money or weight is not an issue then choose the Rolls and get the Canon 2.8 isViewed by many as the perfect zoom. If the reason you need a better lense is for more reach, then go for the Canon100-400 is or the Sigma 50-500. I cheaped out and got the 50-500 after my 75-300is seemed a bit limiting, and am quite happy with the decision, but if I had gotten my other option, a used Canon 70-200 2.8is I would probably been just as happy there. |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 09:38:53 AM · #6 |
my next lens will be a canon ef 75-300mm f4/5.6 III (non IS). Reason being -- it's 200 bucks. They say it's soft from 200-300 (well that's fine becuase the more expensive 70-200 doesn't even get out above 200).
You could also get the Canon 70-200 f4 USM -- about $650 and highly reccomended. or 28-300 f3.5-5.6 IS USM -- it's like $2400.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2005 11:06:24 AM · #7 |
what other lenses do you currently own?
do you want longer reach? or wide angle?
James |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 02:39:11 PM · #8 |
| you guys are AWESOME! I am looking for a better pic and MORE zoom range! thanks! |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 02:41:34 PM · #9 |
Try to find a review for Sigma 135-400mm,
Have heard good things about it, but not read any reviews yet! |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 02:48:33 PM · #10 |
how does this look?
//cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30066&item=3871105221&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
OR
//cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=3872143506&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
Message edited by author 2005-02-06 14:49:25. |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 03:07:26 PM · #11 |
Both look okay to me. Just read some reviews on Sigma...complaints were limit to zoom creep and slow AF, but backed up with the AF is slow by comparison with Canon, yet not really that slow.
They did say that for slow moving or static subjects it was ideal and as sharp as Canon 75-200...but not so good for action shot. Above average results at 400mm.
The Canon looks fine, 2 months old with 10 months warranty left can't be bad.
Price wise they are about the same. Either would appear to be a good choice. Good Luck with whichever you get.
Steve |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 03:33:17 PM · #12 |
What I am looking for in a lense is:
* Better pic quality than 75-300mm f4/5.6
* better zoom than 75-300mm f4/5.6
* good for action shots (motorcycle racing)
* Good for Landscape shots
Budget $800-
Once again THANKS! |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 03:54:12 PM · #13 |
how about this?
Canon Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Autofocus Lens
what your opinions?
THANK YOU!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 04:05:59 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Haydens Mommy:
What I am looking for in a lense is:
* Better pic quality than 75-300mm f4/5.6
* better zoom than 75-300mm f4/5.6
* good for action shots (motorcycle racing)
* Good for Landscape shots
Budget $800-
|
not going to happen.
the best thing for you would be the canon 70-200 2.8 USM and a 1.4 teleconverter. even for that lens though you're looking $1200. Use your 18-55 for landscape and the 75-300 for the motorcycles (actually something I want to get into shooting too -- except with stunting).
EDIT: I said 70-288 I meant 70-200
Message edited by author 2005-02-06 16:44:37.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2005 04:07:29 PM · #15 |
Hi Rachelle,
Looking at your needs, I don't think the 135 is your best option. While it is a nice fast lens, it does not give you the longer zoom you are looking for and the flexibility you probably need for motorcycle racing.
Within your budget, your best option is probably the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for about $750. While not quite as sharp as the Canon version of the lens, the Sigma has the distinct advantage of being within your budget, while the Canon is well above it. The extra speed from the f/2.8 will give you some added capability for motorcycle racing as compared to your existing 75-300 lens. For added reach, consider adding the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter for about $80.00. With this attachment in place, your lens effectively becomes a 98-280 f/3.5. That teleconverter cn also be used with your 75-300, stretching it out to 420mm, though it will be a relatively slow f/6.7 at the long end.
Your total cost for this upgrade will be about $830.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2005-02-06 16:12:02.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2005 04:17:44 PM · #16 |
It sounds like you don't really know what you want.
For starters you're confusing 'zoom' with 'focal length'. It's better to think in terms of zoom ratio and focal length. Focal length is a way of expressing the field of view of the lens, or how much it will magnify an object at a set distance. Photographers typically refer to lenses with a large focal length, like a 400mm lens, as 'long' or describing it as having 'reach'. Similarly, a lens with a small focal length, like a 20mm lens, is a 'wide' or 'short' lens.
Zoom ratio is the ratio between the focal lengths of the lens - a 35-350mm zoom lens has a zoom ratio of 1:10. It is often expressed as a power, like 10x. A lens like a Canon 100-400 zoom lens will have a smaller zoom ratio (1:4) but has a greater focal length.
So, when you're referring to 'lots of zoom' people assume you mean a large focal length, but it's confusing. The 135 F2L you ask about above has no zoom at all - it's a fixed focal length (or 'prime') lens, and while it has a relatively long focal length, you can't change it. It's one of the best lenses Canon makes in terms of optical quality.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2005 04:25:36 PM · #17 |
Within your budget, your best option is probably the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for about $750. While not quite as sharp as the Canon version of the lens, the Sigma has the distinct advantage of being within your budget, while the Canon is well above it. The extra speed from the f/2.8 will give you some added capability for motorcycle racing as compared to your existing 75-300 lens. For added reach, consider adding the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter for about $80.00. With this attachment in place, your lens effectively becomes a 98-280 f/3.5. That teleconverter cn also be used with your 75-300, stretching it out to 420mm, though it will be a relatively slow f/6.7 at the long end.
Your total cost for this upgrade will be about $830.
-Terry [/quote]
I have this set up and works very well......Terry this is the one I pm your on...lol |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 05:05:48 PM · #18 |
Also within that price range is the Sigma 50-500 which is the zoom to pick when you don't know what zoom to pick. It does everything, just not quite as well as the other one which is better in one slice of what the specialty teles can do. but it does more things prety well than any other long zoom.
If you want to find a spot on the track and leave you focus point there, then this lens is a great buy. If you want something that allows you to track the action at the speed of flying motorcycles, this isn't the one, go shorter and go Canon USM. There are those that say that the Bigma so soft at 500mm as to be useless, to whom I say not IMHO.
this is at 500 and it works almost as well with the 1.4 coupler, that gives you an equivalent of 1120mm at max range. If you want that setup to snap quickly into focus, good luck, it hunts as badly as the 75-300 with a 1.4 on, you can get coffee before it finds the focal point.
If you want speed over reach, got the route of the 70-200 2.8. Of course for motorcycle work your dream lens is the 300mm 2.8 is, but that is for after you win the lotterey. |
|
|
|
02/06/2005 05:20:08 PM · #19 |
I purchased the Sigma 70-300mm Super APO II 4-5.6 last week and have been playing around with it with my DR. Never put it on the 20D because wanted to test its performance with my DR.
I have had the Canon 75-300mm 4-5.6 II for years and have been happy with it but was looking for something just another notch up. Well, IMO that isn't what I got with the Sigma 70-300mm Super APO II 4-5.6. I'm quite disappointed. Compared to my Canon 75-300 IMO the Sigma Performs poorly. The auto focus searches and is slow compared to my Canon. The Sigma sometimes wouldn't even focus yet when I put my Canon back on voila, focus is achieved. IMO, the image quality that I also got from the Sigma is less sharp and also has less contrast.
Just thought I would share.
One other thing. I have a friend that has the Sigma EX 80-400mm and he often lest me borrow it. All I can say about that lens it, "WOW!!!". It's awesome with the Image Stabilization and everything is super sharp and has great contrast.
Message edited by author 2005-02-06 17:22:15.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2005 07:21:35 PM · #20 |
Rachelle,
Just curious what you ended up deciding. Have you picked a lens yet?
-Terry
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 02:01:36 AM · #21 |
Just for folk asking if the 70-200 F4L, or L's in general are worth it, the linked file is a 100% crop from an image I shot this evening, using a 70-200 F4L, fully extended at 200mm , stopped down to f10. The building is just over a mile away from where I was shooting - (1800m according to mapquest)
Frost Tower Crop (1Mb JPEG)
Just be sure your browser isn't compressing the image - it should look quite crisp! Someone left their TV on...
The linked file, above, hasn't been sharpened at all, here's the whole image:
Message edited by author 2005-02-10 02:05:54. |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 02:41:27 AM · #22 |
Very sharp Gordon. I am not sure my copy of the lens is as sharp, or maybe the difference is the camera. Though I presume if you shot it in JPEG the D60 is already sharpening? I always shoot RAW, so perhaps it simply doesn't look as sharp.
I really want to do some formal lens testing on my lenses--from what I've read they can differ quite a bit. |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 04:28:31 AM · #23 |
I have decided to keep the 75 300mm and go for a canon portrait lens.... any sugestions?
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Rachelle,
Just curious what you ended up deciding. Have you picked a lens yet?
-Terry |
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 04:40:02 AM · #24 |
| posted suggestion in proper thread :D |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 08:36:49 AM · #25 |
| Over the weekend I had a chance to work indoors at a cheerleading competition and used a canon 70-200 2.8 shooting at ISO 1600 and the quality was flawless. the 70-200 2.8 is my next purchase even at 1600 the noise was all but invisible. This lens was magic lightning fast focus internal zoom and silent its a must have foor any fast indoor activity and better yet they were sharp and crisp right out of the camera |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 04:31:49 PM EDT.
