| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2004 02:56:17 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
1. I want to protect this lens, but B&H doesn't seem to carry a 67mm Canon UV Filter. Given the high quality optics on the 70-200/4L, is the General brand UV filter OK? Assuming I only got one, would a General brand polarizer be preferable to the UV filter? |
I only use high-quality filters on my L glass (and leave them on all the time). Hoya Super HMC filters work for me, although B&W and Heliopan filters are supposedly even better, but they cost a LOT more too. So far, I'm very happy with the Hoya Super HMC (they're not exactly cheap, but given the cost of the lens, not outrageous IMHO either.)
Originally posted by superdave_909:
Do you guys think that the IS is is going to be missed if he goes with
the 70-200 = 1.4x vs the 75-300 IS. |
He's on a limited budget, otherwise I'd strongly encourage the 70-200/2.8L IS. =] But given that the optics on the 70-200/4L are superior to the 75-300, and that you can use a tripod to alleviate the need for IS, I'd still go with the 70-200/4L in this situation. IS is great and I love it, but I'd vote for optics over IS if you can't afford both (the 70-200/2.8L IS)...
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 14:59:34. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 03:26:13 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
grdSavant- Thanks for the suggestions. I checked them out, and unfortunately the Sigma lenses are rated fairly poorly compared to the Canon L series. The Sigma 70-200 (not 210) is pretty good, but still not quite at the the level of the Canon. Also, I don't think the Rebel can focus properly above f5.6, so the longer zooms you mentioned are moot. |
Agreed the Canon f/2.8 lens rates a 4.1 (sweet, sweet L glass) and the Sigma EX APO glass is only 3.9, but that isn’t really a difference, and heck, I thought you were on a tiny budget. I would not have the Canon f/4.0 because I want birds which is not possible with 200mm, so you gotta have a teleconverter. Canon L glass means high priced Canon teleconverters, too. And note, I said Sigma f/2.8 70-210mm, not the cheesy f/4.5-6 grade 2.9 lens.
I don’t understand. The Canon 300D is absolutely fabulous above f/5.6. If yours is not, then I suppose you need to get it repaired. But then again it may be true for me because I use Sigma glass. I am curious about this statement about not focusing above f/5.6.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 03:33:23 PM · #28 |
I am really glad for this thread (talk about serendipity!) because I am shopping for the same thing as scalvert with, it appears, the same budget considerations.
I am leaning towards the Canon 70-200/4L as well, but grdSavant now has me second guessing myself.
As always, the proof is in the pictures. grdSavant can you post some samples with the Sigma/teleconverter setup?
Thanks.
Dave
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 03:35:42 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by grdSavant:
The used Sigma (note 210, not 200) may have to be sent to Sigma for a **FREE** upgrade, but that is great because they tune and clean it all up like new, too. |
I heard a while back that Sigma was no longer re-chipping some of their older lenses to work with Canon AF. I think they have a limited number of re-chipping kits available. You might want to check that out before buying an older Sigma lens. |
Certainly check. Phone technicians at (631) 585-1144 or Customer Service Department call toll free (800) 896-6858.
They seem to upgrade till the lens product reaches 10 years. I asked about their 400mm f/4 APO lens the other day and their response was, "no upgrade. over 10 years old." It would be nice to know their "policy" is something more than the number of chips they bought. Maybe someone knows their policy. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 03:49:56 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by dsa157:
I am really glad for this thread (talk about serendipity!) because I am shopping for the same thing as scalvert with, it appears, the same budget considerations.
I am leaning towards the Canon 70-200/4L as well, but grdSavant now has me second guessing myself.
As always, the proof is in the pictures. grdSavant can you post some samples with the Sigma/teleconverter setup?
Thanks.
Dave |
I would if I could. I don't know if I have that capability. Tell me how. But, what you need is a side-by-side comparison of the setups. There are a quadzillion reports on the Canon f/4 L, and I have seen a couple with comparisons with other setups -- wish I knew where so I could say.
But the real problem is the “reach” of any 200mm. I hatched a plan to sell my Sigma f/2.8 24-70mm lens and my Sigma f/2.8 70-210mm and my Tamron SP 2x teleconverter so that I could buy the Sigma 50-500mm. didn’t, but sure thought about it real hard. I like the flexibility I have the way I am, plus add a fast 3x teleconverter for a real bird lens of 630mm. but, but, but, I believe that when we get past 300mm with almost any setup, things start getting soft (expensive prime lenses, too).
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 03:58:50 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by grdSavant:
... note, I said Sigma f/2.8 70-210mm, not the cheesy f/4.5-6 grade 2.9 lens... The Canon 300D is absolutely fabulous above f/5.6. |
D'oh! I only saw one poorly-rated 70-210 Sigma lens on the Photodo site and didn't notice that it was a different model. The comment about Canon focusing issues is really dumb now that I think about it... I've taken plenty of photos at small apertures. I was just reciting that from a thread here at DPC that I stumbled onto this morning while searching for these lenses (of course, now I can't find the thread). At least one of us is awake! I'll still probably go with the 70-200 because A: I'd rather deal with a new Canon L than an upgraded, used Sigma, and B: I'm just shooting birds around my yard at fairly close range, not distant eagles.
EddyG- thanks for coming through again. I'll look for Hoyas. Any thoughts on a camera bag?
JimmytheFish- thanks for the suggestion, but I won a bet, not the lottery. ;-) |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:03:00 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
2. I've got a LowePro Nova 1 AW camera bag, which is a snug fit for the Rebel/28-105 lens, 50mm lens and 420ex flash. I'm thinking about a LowePro 2 or 3 AW to make room for the 70-200 lens. Can anybody comment on this or suggest a better alternative (under $60)? |
BTW, I have just been through all of this painful stuff in detail to get my stuff up and usable.
If you meant the Nova series, you need 9.9" for the camera body and lens, which you don't get until the Lowepro Nova 4 AW, 11.5", under $60. The 3 is only 9" I got the 5 (silly big) so that I could use a 2x teleconverter on the lens and still keep the camera and lens connected in one piece when out in the field. LOL -- then you get to use the Lowepro backpack harness ($13). Use a store named photocan anyway //stores.ebay.com/photococan_W0QQsspagenameZl2QQtZkm Way, way cheape Lowepro stuff.
edit: but I do NOT like my Lowepro. They are too overstuffed and therefore get huge in external size. My Vidpro bag is well padded and while only 1/2 inch to small for my needs, it is just 1/2 the size of my giant Lowepro Nova 5 AW.
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 16:39:13. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:12:55 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I f I were birding it'd be the 400 f/5.6L all the way. |
For me I want the 600mm f/4L IS all the way for birding. :)
Greg |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:14:09 PM · #34 |
| Good info, Jerry- especially Photocan. I'm not worried about the bag depth since I use the 28-105 as my general-purpose lens. The other lenses only come out for a particular need and get packed away separately when I'm done. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:16:00 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'll still probably go with the 70-200 because A: I'd rather deal with a new Canon L than an upgraded, used Sigma, and B: I'm just shooting birds around my yard at fairly close range, not distant eagles.
|
I have to say, Canon L glass seems to be wonderful -- wish I had some. Especially the waterproof ones (most are, I think).
Hey, everyone you know has a cheap 75-300mm Canon lens. Borrow one. Check out the usability in your back yard. A small bird 12 feet away is not well resolved by a 200mm lens. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:16:16 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by dadas115:
For me I want the 600mm f/4L IS all the way for birding. :) |
For that price, you could just buy a used Mazda and drive closer. Zoom, zoom, zoom! |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:17:27 PM · #37 |
I don't know a thing about camera bags but I would strongly suggest passing on a UV filter to protect the lens. If you use the hood, your front element should be safe and sound. This way you save yourself some money (that you can put toward a bag) and won't ever need to worry weather or not the filter is hurting your image quality.
Greg
Originally posted by scalvert:
I think I'll stick with EddyG on this one. The Sigma 70-200 is $160 more than the Canon, and I doubt that I'd get a 2x teleconverter. If I ever need that much reach, I'll be looking for a sf 300 or 400 lens. I'm getting a few more things off my wish list... a lens hood for the 28-105, a Sto-fen Omni-Bounce for the 420ex, and maybe adapters for my telescope. It's Christmas in April!
Two more questions for this panel of experts:
1. I want to protect this lens, but B&H doesn't seem to carry a 67mm Canon UV Filter. Given the high quality optics on the 70-200/4L, is the General brand UV filter OK? Assuming I only got one, would a General brand polarizer be preferable to the UV filter?
2. I've got a LowePro Nova 1 AW camera bag, which is a snug fit for the Rebel/28-105 lens, 50mm lens and 420ex flash. I'm thinking about a LowePro 2 or 3 AW to make room for the 70-200 lens. Can anybody comment on this or suggest a better alternative (under $60)? |
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:19:56 PM · #38 |
I didn’t ever miss it. I like nice sharp pictures at 280mm (I can hand hold pretty well) better than soft muddy full of CA pictures at 300mm with IS. THe EF 75-300 IS was the only lens I have ever really been disappointed with.
Greg
Originally posted by superdave_909:
Do you guys think that the IS is is going to be missed if he goes with
the 70-200 = 1.4x vs the 75-300 IS. |
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:21:20 PM · #39 |
I also read that Sigma is no longer making the chips for this lens so re-chipping is no longer available for these. I think I read it over at dpreview so take this statement with the appropriate amount of salt.
Greg
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by grdSavant:
The used Sigma (note 210, not 200) may have to be sent to Sigma for a **FREE** upgrade, but that is great because they tune and clean it all up like new, too. |
I heard a while back that Sigma was no longer re-chipping some of their older lenses to work with Canon AF. I think they have a limited number of re-chipping kits available. You might want to check that out before buying an older Sigma lens. |
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:28:31 PM · #40 |
[teleconverter for a real bird lens of 630mm. but, but, but, I believe that when we get past 300mm with almost any setup, things start getting soft (expensive prime lenses, too). [/quote]
I guess that really depends on what you mean by soft. I have seen pictures that absolutely blow me away (wiht insane sharpness) produced by 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses. I think soft was about the last word that enteres my mind when I see them. I wish I had some handy to post but all my on-line pictures are of tiny resolution that don't really prove a thing.
Greg |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:34:02 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by dadas115:
I also read that Sigma is no longer making the chips for this lens so re-chipping is no longer available for these. I think I read it over at dpreview so take this statement with the appropriate amount of salt.
Greg
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by grdSavant:
The used Sigma (note 210, not 200) may have to be sent to Sigma for a **FREE** upgrade, but that is great because they tune and clean it all up like new, too. |
I heard a while back that Sigma was no longer re-chipping some of their older lenses to work with Canon AF. I think they have a limited number of re-chipping kits available. You might want to check that out before buying an older Sigma lens. |
|
Just had mine done. I posted their phone number, call it. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:39:05 PM · #42 |
Like I said, take it with the appropriate amount of salt. I know that for some lenses Sigma will not re-chip them. I had one of the older 400mm primes and was told that they could not re-chip it. It is good that you supplied the phone number though so you can get the word from the horse's mouth. I thankfully don't need to be worrying about re-chipping any lenses as mine are all Canon excpet for 1 Sigma that worked great right out of the box.
Greg |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:40:05 PM · #43 |
I read on the canon website that they are coming out with some new 70-300mm and 28-300mm lenses. Might be worth checking them out. I belive they have IS features and high quality optics. They are probably in the higher range of prices though...
I have the 75-300 IS and although I agree that the quality of the optics aren't the best, I could not do without the IS feature. I like being able to use the zoom in low light without sacrificing pictures to image blur. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:45:48 PM · #44 |
Unfortunately it looks like both of these will be $1000+ lenses. I was pretty excited about the new DO lens until I saw the proposed pricetag of $1299.
Greg
Originally posted by CowM007:
I read on the canon website that they are coming out with some new 70-300mm and 28-300mm lenses. Might be worth checking them out. I belive they have IS features and high quality optics. They are probably in the higher range of prices though...
I have the 75-300 IS and although I agree that the quality of the optics aren't the best, I could not do without the IS feature. I like being able to use the zoom in low light without sacrificing pictures to image blur. |
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 16:52:34. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:48:41 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by dadas115:
Unfortunately both of those lenses look like they are going to sell for >$1000 |
That would be fortunate. Estimated price US $ 2.499 for the EF 28-300mm.
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 16:52:04.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:54:59 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by dadas115:
Unfortunately both of those lenses look like they are going to sell for >$1000 |
That would be fortunate. Estimated price US $ 2.499 for the EF 28-300mm. |
Last I checked, $2499 was greater than $1000. To me that is pretty unfortunate.
Greg
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 05:07:32 PM · #47 |
I am using the 75-300 IS for my 10D. it is not the best lens, but it is not bad as someone thinks if no enough $ to buy the L lens. I use it for the birds shooting and some more. the pictures I took can be found in www.pbase.com/gangw or //www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=2291170
70-200 /f4 L is better for optic quality, but it is no IS and 200 mm is too short to shoot the birds in most of time.
If I had money, I would update my 75-300 IS to 100-400/ IS or 70-200/2.8 L IS.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 05:34:59 PM · #48 |
gangw- thanks for clouding the issue. Your images look pretty good to me. I can see some processing/JPEG artifacts on some, but nothing that would lead me to believe the lens itself was terrible. TerryGee posted a shot from the Canon 75-300 in another thread that looked fine, too:
I have no doubt that the L lenses are much better, but then an EOS1D MarkII would be better, too. If I were shooting photos to earn a living, there's no question I'd go for L glass, but this is just for my own amusement, so I'm still undecided. Can anybody post a shot from the Canon 70-200 to show me why I'd pay $184 more for 100mm less reach and no IS? |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 05:41:31 PM · #49 |
| lets say you were shooting Ice hockey, in terrible lighting, what would you do? |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 05:44:40 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by hsteg:
lets say you were shooting Ice hockey, in terrible lighting, what would you do? |
Spend the extra $184 to get better seats, use 50mm f1.8 and crop.
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 17:45:28. |
|
