| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/18/2006 12:38:36 PM · #1 |
I just recently sold my rebel xt and most of my gear in order to upgrade. I put in an order for a 30D that will be shipped on Monday. Now I have a new 30D coming and no lenses for it. I'm going to order a Tamron 28-75 and a Sigma 430EX flash from B&H, but before I place the order I want to decide on a good telephoto zoom. I will be shooting events for photoadrenline.com during the fall and spring of next year. I'll be doing a good bit of high school sports (crappy outdoor football lighting). So I'm thinking I'm going to need something f/2.8. Here's what I'm considering at the moment:
- Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 DG
- Canon 80-200 F/2.8 L
Do any of you have any experience with either of these lenses? I'm trying to get some opinions to compare the quality of the two. Also, if you have one would you be willing to sell it? |
|
|
|
06/18/2006 12:45:58 PM · #2 |
I have the 80-200... It kicks some serious keester for sharpness.
Rippin' good...
A tad less than perfect in the autofocus department... Still pretty damned decent and pretty quick... Blows the kerpoppin's out of my S2 IS for focusing speed. (bet you didn't know there even were any 'kerpoppin's' in an S2 IS!)
I don't use my telephoto much these days... I do 80% of my stuff with the 50mm or the kit lens (waiting for the Tokina 16-50) I am borrowing...
So most of my shots with the 80-200 were done early on in my learning curve. But I like it :).
Photozone.de is a good place for real world comparisons, although they are occasionally marred by bad test samples.
one point, you might want to consider the Sigma 500DG Super for your flash. I think it's generally viewed as more bang for the buck than the 430EX, particularly if you are not shooting studio...
Message edited by author 2006-06-18 12:47:37. |
|
|
|
06/18/2006 12:55:06 PM · #3 |
That's good to hear about the 80-200. I was leaning more towards it. Since you don't use yours very often you should find it a new home with a loving owner that will play with it often. I can take if off your hands for you. Haha.
As for the flash, I had a sigma 500 before, but it wasn't the super model. I was thinking I would get the 430EX instead of the 500 super because the 430EX is capable of automatically adjusting the flash for different sized sensors on DSLR's to compensate for the 1.6 crop of the D30. It also sends white balance setting to the camera when the camera is set in flash or auto white balance mode. I don't think the 500 Super does either of these, but I could be mistaken. The 500 Super is more powerful, but I don't know how often I would be using it at full power. |
|
|
|
06/18/2006 01:03:34 PM · #4 |
I also have the Canon 80-200 and I love it! My friend who has the 70-200 2.8 Canon lens was very impressed with my 80-200. He borrowed it when his lens was in the shop, and found it fast and sharp
I shoot in a lot of low light situations and the speed and zoom it has are fantastic. I (personally) haven't had any problems with the autofocus.
I highly recommend it
|
|
|
|
06/18/2006 01:06:06 PM · #5 |
Wow, you have done some good research!
I'm trying to figure out what advantage a flash could have by knowing the size of the sensor...
The only thing I can think of right now is that perhaps it would need to light a smaller area...
Focus information shouldn't be affected by the sensor size... or?
Interesting things to think about as I get closer and closer to purchasing a new flash for myself. |
|
|
|
06/18/2006 01:12:44 PM · #6 |
You're right, the only thing that knowing the size of the sensor does is compensate by lighting a smaller area. If you get the sigma 500 super, you'll throw enough light to light up everything the lens sees, instead of throwing enough to light just what the sensor sees. This hurts battery life, and makes for longer recycle times. Just something to consider. The 430EX and 500 Super seem to sell for about the same price at B&H. For me, just the white balance readings from the 430EX would be enough to sway me in that direction.
Message edited by author 2006-06-18 13:13:23. |
|
|
|
06/18/2006 02:58:31 PM · #7 |
Chances are that the Sigma would focus faster than the Canon 80-200. Might be a factor, especially where sports are concerned.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2006 03:12:58 PM · #8 |
the 80-200L is not really slow focusing by any means. It does use a motor that is faster than a lot of other lenses. I would say it's about equal (maybe slightly slower) to the 50mm 1.8 canon makes. The sharpness is amazing, and the reviews i've read put it above all the new lenses. It does have some slight issues with CA at times I've noticed. The thing is built very well, heavy, like a tank. I love the lens, and I hope it never breaks, at least until I can get the 70-200L IS.
However there are some bad things to consider. It will not take canon telecoverters, you'll have to get a tamron I believe. It isn't made anymore which means, it's always used, it never has a warrenty, and if it breaks, good luck fixing it.
Just some things to consider. |
|
|
|
06/18/2006 04:06:04 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
Chances are that the Sigma would focus faster than the Canon 80-200. Might be a factor, especially where sports are concerned. |
I shoot live dance where speed is a factor, and have yet to have a problem (with the canon 80-200)
|
|
|
|
06/18/2006 05:14:46 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by AJAger:
Chances are that the Sigma would focus faster than the Canon 80-200. Might be a factor, especially where sports are concerned. |
I shoot live dance where speed is a factor, and have yet to have a problem (with the canon 80-200) |
I presume that the dance is taking place on a stage, which would be a smaller area than a sports field.
The 50mm 1.8 is noticeably slower to autofocus than the Canon 70-200. I believe that the Sigma is not much slower than the Canon.
If, by football, one were, for instance, to mean real football (what some strange people call soccer), then autofocus speed might really come into its own.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2006 05:25:59 PM · #11 |
One of the guys who shoots the local football ("soccer") teams uses a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and swears by it. The thing is fast and very sharp. On the downside, it's pretty damn big and heavy. It's also pretty darn expensive.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2006 06:09:27 PM · #12 |
The sigma is very very good. the 80-200 is the old 'magic drainpipe' if memory serves - nice, but older. I use an older tamron 70-210 2.8 cause i got it for $300...there is no image quality difference that you'll notice. go with whatever is less costly. if the same price, go sigma, it's new.
i don't like a flash without an LCD on the back - i have used a 580 and mostly use a metz 54 MZ4. I got a Sigma 500 Super for backup and while it's build feels less than stellar, it does work well. WB is not an issue IMO - shoot raw and you don't care. you can shoot auto. you can change it to flash. unless flash is the main light, you'll have mixed lighting and WB issues with any flash. I prefer a stronger flash, so for me the 430 is not something i'd look at. As for sensing the sensor size - it's not that important that you'll notice. perhaps if you trying to illuminate out the full throw of the flash, but if that't the case you nedd a more powerful flash than the 430.
the 28-75 is nice, but check the tamron 17-50 2.8. it's the right lens for a 1.6 crop camera. the 28-75 is NOT wide enough for indoor work.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2006 07:06:35 PM · #13 |
There are several older discontinued Canon lenses that are considered to be superior to their replacements in sharpness. The 80-200 is one of them. But it is an older design and it's most commonly mentioned drawback happens to be in an area that is important in the shooting you are planning to do with your new purchase, it's focus speed. The Sigma 70-200 is much more recent iteration which incorporates a next generation focus motor and anti-reflective coatings for digital camera use. I have two of the discontinued Canon L models that are supposed to be sharper, and I have a Sigma 70-200 that is not a DG. For most types of shooting your two choices would both rate very high with me, but for sports I'd choose the Sigma over the 80-200. If you told me that you just hit the lottery I'd say get a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 DG.
Message edited by author 2006-06-18 19:08:17.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2006 07:17:06 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by AJAger:
Chances are that the Sigma would focus faster than the Canon 80-200. Might be a factor, especially where sports are concerned. |
I shoot live dance where speed is a factor, and have yet to have a problem (with the canon 80-200) |
I presume that the dance is taking place on a stage, which would be a smaller area than a sports field.
The 50mm 1.8 is noticeably slower to autofocus than the Canon 70-200. I believe that the Sigma is not much slower than the Canon.
If, by football, one were, for instance, to mean real football (what some strange people call soccer), then autofocus speed might really come into its own. |
True, theatre from certain angles will have smaller coverage areas than a sports field from certain angles
I forgot because it'd been a while, but I have shot hockey with the 80-200 as well. Some shots here
However, people seem to be leaning towards the Sigma, so I'm curious on what you will get
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 03:33:55 AM EST.
