Lens Question - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

03/17/2006 07:52:01 PM · #1

I am looking at purchasing a long zoom lens. I don't have much money to speed and don't see how I can afford the canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM. So I have been looking at the following. Keeping in mind that I NEED an IS lens because on my shake could I get some advice on these lens I have been looking at.

Also with magnification what would the total zoom be on each with my rebel 350XT

Lens 1. Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM Autofocus Lens
Lens 2. Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens
Lens 3. Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens (Does not have IS and limited to 200mm :( )

If a camera lens has a magnification of 1.4 does that mean a 100-400mm is equal to 140-460???

Thanks for your time
-SDW

J_Ehrat

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/17/2006 08:04:13 PM · #2

Looking at what lenses you already have, I would go with the 100-400. It will give you a longer range than the others. You already are covered to 200mm so the 70-300 would only add an extra 100mm.

Also the magnification is refering to the sensor not the lens.

Also the crop factor on the 350 is 1.6 so it would be 160-640

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 20:07:05.

J_Ehrat

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/17/2006 08:10:16 PM · #3

Oh...I think that the 1:4 is the ratio to life size, as macro produces 1:1 lifesize magnification, and no it does not make the lens longer than what it is. Sorry about the mix up.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 20:17:51.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

03/17/2006 09:26:35 PM · #4

Originally posted by J_Ehrat:

So if I purchase the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, on my camera (1.6 crop) would the the equivilant of 160-640mm???

03/17/2006 09:38:07 PM · #5

What do you intend to shoot with this lens?

If it's birds and other wildlife, 200mm won't be enough (although a 1.4X TC would help greatly). If it's people or sports, the faster f/2.8 lens would have an edge. The 70-200 is among the best lenses made for image quality, and your Tamron 18-200 may gather dust while you use this and the 28-75.

The 100-400 is excellent for reaching distant wildlife, but it's also massive, and the push-pull zoom is somewhat awkward. It's not exactly a lens you'll carry around for casual use.

The 70-300 offers a lot of bang for the buck. The image quality won't match L glass, but it's still very good. The nice thing about this lens is its portability- you can carry it around easier, and your subjects won't feel like they've got a telescope pointed at them. Consider also that you could buy that lens and another (like a nice wide angle or long macro) and still spend hundreds less than the other two.

Your needs should ditate your choice.

03/17/2006 09:38:38 PM · #6

Originally posted by southern_exposure:

So if I purchase the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, on my camera (1.6 crop) would the the equivilant of 160-640mm???

Correct.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

03/17/2006 09:44:00 PM · #7

Originally posted by scalvert:

Thank you for the info.
I will be using it mainly for sports (hockey, Racing, Baseball, and other local sports. Also for plays at my son's drama club. I'm beginning to think that the 70 to 200 f/2.8 will be the best for indoors and sports under night lighting bulbs. But if I go with that I would want the IS and it's expensive.

How well would the 70-300 do under the above situations. I have looked at the top rated photos with this lens and they look great in good lighting.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 21:45:42.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/17/2006 09:50:00 PM · #8

A minolta 5D and Sigma 70-20mm 2.8 lens can't be far off the price of a Canon 70-200mm...

J_Ehrat

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/17/2006 09:51:31 PM · #9

Indoors pretty much changes everything. Your going to want as fast a lens that you can afford. I would defintely say buy the 70-200 because of the 2.8. You could always buy a 1.4x (bumps max ap. to 4.5 or 2x bumps to 5.6) to get the extra reach.

03/17/2006 09:58:41 PM · #10

Originally posted by southern_exposure:

How well would the 70-300 do under the above situations?

Hard to say. The IS will keep your camera still but it won't help moving subjects in low light, and you're probably limited to ISO400 on your camera before noise starts to become an issue. The 70-300 IS also won't focus as quickly as an L lens. If hand steadiness is the only issue, I'd probably go with a 70-200 and a good monopod for low-light action.

Another lens you might consider is Sigma's 80-400, which gives you more zoom and image stabilization for $999. I'm not familiar with the image quality on that one, though. As Bobster noted, Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 is quite good, and there's also Canon's 200mm f/2.8L for about $650, which would leave you room for a monopod and 1.4x teleconverter.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 22:06:59.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

03/17/2006 10:07:24 PM · #11

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by southern_exposure:
How well would the 70-300 do under the above situations?

Hard to say. The IS will keep your camera still but it won't help moving subjects in low light, and you're probably limited to ISO400 on your camera before noise starts to become an issue. The 70-300 IS also won't focus as quickly as an L lens. If hand steadiness is the only issue, I'd probably go with a 70-200 and a good monopod for low-light action.

Another lens you might consider is Sigma's 80-400, which gives you more zoom and image stabilization for $999. I'm not familiar with the image quality on that one, though. As Bobster noted, Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 is quite good, and there's also Canon's 200mm f/2.8L for about $650, which would leave you room for a monopod and 1.4x teleconverter.

This picture was taken tonight with my 350XT and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 ant ISO 1600. Below is one of the pictures and a 100% Crop of the same picture. What do you think of the noise issue?

P/S: No editing except converting from RAW to TIFF and resizing to 640x.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 22:12:39.

03/17/2006 10:26:27 PM · #12

Well it's not terrible, but there IS obvious noise. If nothing else, it should show you the value of f/2.8.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

03/17/2006 10:32:36 PM · #13

Originally posted by southern_exposure:

...Below is one of the pictures and a 100% Crop of the same picture...

I see this posted every now and then: 100% crop. What does this mean? If I crop an original by 100% I have nothing left, not one pixel. No glot clom Fliday.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

03/17/2006 10:38:28 PM · #14

meaning you have 640 pixels in a 640 pixel area (100%). Or to be more relative 640x640 picture would have 409,600 pixel area. This crop is a total of 409,600 pixels (100%). Meaning the pixels are actual size.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 22:40:46.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

03/17/2006 11:05:19 PM · #15

Originally posted by southern_exposure:

Thanks, Scott. You do make sense. I've called this a 1:1 crop.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

03/18/2006 12:15:41 AM · #16

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by southern_exposure:
meaning you have 640 pixels in a 640 pixel area (100%). Or to be more relative 640x640 picture would have 409,600 pixel area. This crop is a total of 409,600 pixels (100%). Meaning the pixels are actual size.

Thanks, Scott. You do make sense. I've called this a 1:1 crop.

Thank you

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/18/2006 12:36:09 AM · #17

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

A minolta 5D and Sigma 70-20mm 2.8 lens can't be far off the price of a Canon 70-200mm...

In case it's not clear, the Minolta 5D has image stabilising built in. Very affordable way of getting a 70-200 2.8 stabilised lens.

Prof_Fate

03/18/2006 12:42:15 AM · #18

Originally posted by southern_exposure:

This picture was taken tonight with my 350XT and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 ant ISO 1600. Below is one of the pictures and a 100% Crop of the same picture. What do you think of the noise issue?

P/S: No editing except converting from RAW to TIFF and resizing to 640x.

for a 4x6 print or something it's fine. blow it up to 8x10 and i don't think you'll like it.

on my 300D i don't go above 800 unless i absolutely have to, and 800 does not blow up well on some images.

I had a 70-300 4-5.6 and got a 70-210 2.8 and the 2.8 lens is TONS heavier and surpisingly easier to hold steady. It is a world of difference indoors. I can put a 1.4x on it and get the 300 length at f4 - still a full stop faster.

If you have an issue with being able to hold things steady then a monopod or IS or both would help, but as the focal length increases so must the shutter speed to alleviate camera shake.

Message edited by author 2006-03-18 00:46:47.

Prof_Fate

03/18/2006 12:49:40 AM · #19

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
A minolta 5D and Sigma 70-20mm 2.8 lens can't be far off the price of a Canon 70-200mm...

In case it's not clear, the Minolta 5D has image stabilising built in. Very affordable way of getting a 70-200 2.8 stabilised lens.

5D and sigma 70-200 2.8 is $1539
canon 70-200 2.8 IS is $1699

So it would be cheaper, and make it interesting to have a whole nuther body to carry and use as backup...

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

03/18/2006 12:59:36 AM · #20

Just to mirror what others have said, I found that when doing the math, it was better to go with a faster lens than an IS version.

I found a cheap 80-200 f/2.8L that simply ROCKS. Flipping unbelievable in every way (it's like half the weight of the 70-200 too).

This is because for most IS lenses, they are merely trying to compensate for poor apertures. The 70-300mm IS by canon is a good example of this. I believe that you will be using it mostly for the telephoto end and you are looking at f/5.6, bare minimum. That's 2 stops right there. Sure, the manual says that the 70-300 can compensate for 2 stops, but I'd be careful with using that as an absolute figure.

It's got a bit more reach, it's a bit softer at telephoto and it's a better solution than the 70-200 with a 1.4x TC for low-light.

On the other hand, BobsterLobster's got a VERY interesting point about getting a 5D as a 2nd body just for telephoto shots. I've considered something similar myself.

Here are a few interesting combinations (price for lens in USD at B+H)

5D + Sigma 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 APO ($219)
5D + Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG ($839)
5D + Sigma 135-400 f/4.0-5.6 APO DG ($589)
5D + Sigma BIGMA 50-500 f/4.0-6.3 EX DG ($999)
5D + Tamron 200-500 f/5.0-6.3 LD IF ($849)

Ok, so some of the prices combined with a 5D body could work out to being a bit more expensive, but there's definitely food for thought there. And you are even getting a second body out of the mix!

That Bigma with the 5D is an insane mix. That's equivalent to 75-750mm with AS!

The 5D plus the 135-400mm would be nearly the same deal as the 100-400 IS USM (I've heard that it's not the sharpest lens they have made), but FAR lighter and easier to use. The price for body and lens there would be a few hundred dollars less than just the lens.

The 5D plus the Sigma 70-300 APO works out to only a tiny bit more money than the Canon 70-300 IS and is arguably an easily comparable mix. You get 1:2 macro with that too.

Of course, I'm going Canon, so if it were me, I'd be shooting the 80-200 (maybe with a Kenko 1.4x TC) and shooting it on a ball-head tripod with the tightener slacked right off. This helps to remove plenty of camera shake.

And of course, as mentioned earlier, Having a faster lens allows you to stop motion in your subject, but having IS only helps stop motion in your hand.

Not saying one way or the other, just giving some suggestions.