DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Telephoto for Canon?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 28, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/12/2004 03:09:26 PM · #1
I´m looking for your advices for buying zoom-telephoto lens for my drebel.

Have browsed a few sites in my hunt for a decent but not to expensive lens. I know that most often you get what you pay for but my budged is very low and I realy need one.

Here is what I have in mind right now:
1. Canon 75-300mm f/4,0-5,6 IS USM
2. Canon 75-300mm f/4,0-5,6 III USM
3. Sigma 70-300mm f/4,0-5,6 APO Zoom Macro Super II
4. Tamron 70-300mm f/4,0-5,6 LD Macro

About them:
1. IS can be very useful but it´s dont get very good reviews and is the most expensive.
2. Inexpensive but no IS or macro setting.
3. OK reviews, macro (what is APO? Is it somekind of image stabilizer?)
4. Fewest $$$ but best reviews. Macro.

Have tryed the Tamron lens and I´m pretty happy with. Actually few of my best pics are shot with it (both here and elsewere). I know that fundamental macroists wouldnt use it for a macro but it can be used as such. Had it borought from a friend but had to turn it back recently. Sharp and clean but the front of the lens rotates when focusing so it´s almost unable to use polarizer on it. Slow AF.

I would apriciate your comments on thous lenses if you´ve used any of them or if you recomend something else. Remember - low budged.

Thx, Garlic

Message edited by author 2004-08-12 15:11:16.
 08/12/2004 03:42:38 PM · #2
If you can swing it, I would recommend saving up some extra money for the Canon 70-200 Æ’/4L. You won't be disappointed! It will produce some stunning images and will likely hold its resale value (for when you want to upgrade to the 70-200 Æ’/2.8L IS) better than any of the other lenses you listed. Another option to get the cost down is to look for this lens used.

In terms of those 4 actual lenses, I don't have any first-hand experience, but hopefully somebody else can lend more insight than the reviews you've already read.

BTW, "APO" stands for "apochromatic design". You can read more about Sigma acronyms here.

Message edited by author 2004-08-12 15:43:45.
 08/12/2004 04:48:58 PM · #3
Sigma 100-300 F 4 $ 899 ,great lens !

or

Sigma
70-200 F2.8 $ 799 ,nice one too !
 08/12/2004 04:51:29 PM · #4
My grandpa used to say " poor people buying twice" and he was right !

Now you will spend $300 for a piece of crap and later you will buy the expensive one anyway !
 08/12/2004 04:55:51 PM · #5
I had (still have actually, but don't use) a Canon 75-300 non-IS and a friend has the IS version. Mine cost about £160, his cost £420. I think it's fair to say he regrets the extra money on the fairly-ineffective IS, for the huge price difference.

Pitsaman has a good point - if you intend on using your camera a lot and spend a lot of time doing photography, most people DO buy expensive glass. Just seems to be the way of the world. :-)

I got great value out of my crumby 75-300, and have sold a number of shots at 10x8. It's got great range, it's light and easy to use. Is it as crisp as my 70-200/2.8L? Hell no. Buying expensive glass is great if you can afford it now - but even now I'd be happy using my 75-300 for non-paid work.
 08/12/2004 04:59:36 PM · #6
Originally posted by EddyG:
If you can swing it, I would recommend saving up some extra money for the Canon 70-200 Æ’/4L. You won't be disappointed! It will produce some stunning images and will likely hold its resale value (for when you want to upgrade to the 70-200 Æ’/2.8L IS) better than any of the other lenses you listed. Another option to get the cost down is to look for this lens used.

In terms of those 4 actual lenses...


I strongly agree with Eddy re. the EF 70-200 mm L f/4. Personally, I prefer non-IS versions of the better telephoto Ls. I believe they're sharper (I own the 70-200 L f/2.8).

The Tamron 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro is, well, ok up to about 250 mm. It gets discernibly soft beyond that. I use this lens as a back-up for the (above) Canon 70-200L only. Even though I've had no trouble so far, I expect some down-times due to errors (99/1).

Message edited by author 2004-08-12 17:00:53.
 08/12/2004 05:32:53 PM · #7
3. Sigma 70-300mm f/4,0-5,6 APO Zoom Macro Super II

I have this lense, sold under the 'Quantaray' brand name at Ritz Camera. The lense itself isn't all that bad, as long as what you are shooting is fairly static. It is slow on focusing, but if you are patient, you can obtain decent shots with it.

If you are nearby a Ritz Camera store, take a look at the 'Quantaray' labeled version of this lense, it may end up saving you a few dollars.

Check through my portfolio, a number of my shots were taken with this lense. Please keep in mind that I am a rank amateur.

Moving on, would I buy this lense if I had it to do over? Possibly. The range on the lense is nice and the price is very affordable. However, knowing some of what I know now, I would save up the nearly twice the cost and go with the Canon - 28-105 f/3.5 - 4.5 II USM EF Lens.

Sure, it doesn't have as long a reach, but I understand it is much faster on the focus and is very sharp.
 08/12/2004 05:40:12 PM · #8
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Canon - 28-105 f/3.5 - 4.5 II USM EF Lens.

Sure, it doesn't have as long a reach, but I understand it is much faster on the focus and is very sharp.


The 28-105 gets a grade of 3.3 on photodo.com, compared to your 70-300 which gets 2.9.. A score of 3.3 is a little better, but certainly not very sharp, I'm afraid. (Generally I consider a lens above 4.0 to be "very sharp".)

PhotoDo is a little old now and isn't updated, but I still find it useful to compare lens sharpness (it's no use for focus speed, distortion, etc).
 08/12/2004 05:40:34 PM · #9
I've just got a cheapo Canon 75-300mm AF... I know it wasn't one of your options, but don't get it, it sucks.

I am saving my money for a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, hopefully I can scrounge up enough cash after tuition this semester to get it in the next 3-4 months.

Message edited by author 2004-08-12 17:40:57.
 08/12/2004 05:53:05 PM · #10
I have a Canon 90-300 none IS and also the 75-300 IS.
I can't even remember when I last took the 90-300 out the box, but I can tell you when I decided to buy the IS model.

I spent a week in Northumberland, taking shots of the seabird and seal colonies. I was using the 90-300, and didn't have much chance to use a tripod when on the boat. I took nearly 1000 images, and possibly 20 were worth keeping. All the rest were blurred. I bought the IS the very next week.

Last month I went to Egypt, and was using the 75-300 IS from the back of a camel, and they are less stable than a boat. Every shot was pin sharpe.

I don't regret getting the IS, just whish I could afford the 'L' series glass.
 08/13/2004 10:09:21 AM · #11
Thx for the replies.

Might consider the 70-200mm f/4 L though it is above my budged as it is for the moment (and probably next months).
Realy would like to have the extra 100mm reach but then again the lenses mentioned earlier aren´t very sharp above 200mm.

It´s interesting to see at photographyreview.comthe Tamron lens gets bye far the best rating (~4,3) for the 4 I mentioned in the begining. It´s also interesting to see that the 70-200mm f/4L get´s 4,92 and 70-200mm f/2,8L get´s 4,8 and 70-200mm f/2,8L IS gets 4,62 of 5.
I know thease ratings are not based on scientific experiments but still it can give you some indications. Think maybe it gives you some indication of quality/price since people that buyes f/2,8L IS for above $2000 are more critical than the people that takes the f/4L for $500-600 or the people that takes the Tamron for $150.

Thx again. Considering the 70-200 f/4L but think though I´ll have to go for the Tamron at the time being.
 08/13/2004 10:17:25 AM · #12
I'd say it's definitely related to price, garlic. The 70-200/4 is a great lens for the price. The f/2.8 versions start getting pricey, but they ARE f/2.8!

The price of the 70-200/2.8L IS is "only" $1,649.95, btw.

Edit: You might also like to try Fred Miranda's reviews.

Message edited by author 2004-08-13 10:19:23.
 08/13/2004 10:22:58 AM · #13
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
I'd say it's definitely related to price, garlic. The 70-200/4 is a great lens for the price. The f/2.8 versions start getting pricey, but they ARE f/2.8!

The price of the 70-200/2.8L IS is "only" $1,649.95, btw.

Edit: You might also like to try Fred Miranda's reviews.


Thx Paul. Have looked at Fredmiranda.
 08/13/2004 10:31:31 AM · #14
Give TOKINA a try, I was very dubious about 3rd party lenses but this company produce some good lenses, I just got the 28-80 AT-X pro.. I dont know about the NON Pro version but the Pro one is cheap enough.. I got mine secondhand in 100% condition for about $60. I thought i'de only use it once for a shoot in the dirt but I had second thoughts after seeing the results.. good VFM and worth a try IMO

Happy hunting

edit-spelling

Message edited by author 2004-08-13 10:35:58.
 08/13/2004 11:40:21 AM · #15
I will vouch for the Tamron 70-300! Excellent value for under $200. I have gotten some realy good results with this lens. Let me know if you would like to see samples.
 08/13/2004 11:45:16 AM · #16
I would say the 100-400mm L IS USM is worth saving up for and it is a little less than the 70-200 and it is more of a true zoom. It is my primary lens.
 08/13/2004 11:46:43 AM · #17
I have the Sigma. I'm pretty happy with the results. Nice and sharp. For the money i think its a winner @ £140.

The macro shots are nice out of it. I also got a £30 macro filter thrown in when i ordered from Uk Digital Warehouse which REALLY improves the macro ability.
 08/13/2004 12:13:11 PM · #18
Nobody asked yet, but I'm curious what you are going to be shooting with the new lense. I know the first thought is to get long as as much zoom range as possible in order to make the lens more versatile, but a low cost long zoom with a wide range is sure to have compromises.
 08/13/2004 02:06:26 PM · #19
How about the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX APO RF HSM. Would this one be fully functional on a 10D? It certainly has the zoom range, sells for $989 at B&H. Is it considered to be "quality glass" ? Anyone have experience using this lens they'd like to share?
 08/13/2004 02:07:18 PM · #20
To my mind the considerations are,

1. how much zoom do you want? How much do you need? If you can stop at 200mm you get much better glass at a mediun price.

2. How much money can you spend? In the building trades I have noticed that there is always enough money to do it right the second time. Are you buying a lens to use for a while to see if you like zooms or will this be the one?

3. How much weight are you willing to carry? No matter how amazing the lens is if you left it back home because it is too big to get into the concert, or too heavy to carry up to the top of the mountain, or it needs a tripod and you hate tripods, then instead of leaving it at home don't buy it to start with. There is a reason DO lenses sell at that stiff price, it's because it is a pain to haul around five pounds of lens.

Compared to a 70-200 2.8 IS the 75-300 IS is very soft, but it fits in a pocket and I can get it into places where the managment will not allow "Pro" lenses, the resulting images are not as good as those one could have gotten with a bigger faster longer lens, but they are much better than nothing, and the only real alternative is the DO route and those are real money.
08/13/2004 02:39:39 PM · #21
Originally posted by coolhar:
How about the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX APO RF HSM. Would this one be fully functional on a 10D? It certainly has the zoom range, sells for $989 at B&H.

Although I don't have one, I assumed it would be pretty poor. However, on Fred Miranda's user reviews it fairs pretty well.

Originally posted by coolhar:
Is it considered to be "quality glass" ? Anyone have experience using this lens they'd like to share?

It's certainly no L-range, which you can afford in that bracket (if not the same level of zoom).
 08/13/2004 02:56:40 PM · #22
I like my 50-500 and I do not know many people who bought it and got rid of it ( granted my personal pool of knolwdge is four owners, but all are very happy with the lens). It is heavy, and long but the zoom range is both it's greatest weakness and it's greatest strength. It is hard to argue with the rule that the further you get from a prime the worse the image quality is, laws of optics can be bent but not broken. It's strength is being able to go from shooting six feet away for a crowd shot to action two hundred feet away. Any zoom lens is a compromise, and this zoom has more zoom in it than any thing else I have ever held. BTW "everyone knows" this lens is slow and needs a tripod to shoot at 500mm, but it is more flexible than people give it credit for. Both shots hand held. Anohter oddoity, I have been turned away trying to bring a big white lens into a stadium, but the big black ones are OK, why is this?
08/16/2004 12:13:19 PM · #23
Thx for all the replies.

Originally posted by alionic:
Give TOKINA a try, I was very dubious about 3rd party lenses but this company produce some good lenses, I just got the 28-80 AT-X pro..

I´m looking for a longer lens, preferentially 300mm. I have Canon EF 24-85mm.

Originally posted by SoCal69:
I will vouch for the Tamron 70-300! Excellent value for under $200. I have gotten some realy good results with this lens. Let me know if you would like to see samples.

I´m leaning pretty much to this lens. As mentioned be for I´ve tryied myself and I´m pretty happy with it.
Examples:





One of the few things I see against it is that the front ring rotates when focusing so it´s almost impossible to use polarizer on it.

Originally posted by ellamay:
I would say the 100-400mm L IS USM is worth saving up for and it is a little less than the 70-200 and it is more of a true zoom. It is my primary lens.

I realy would like to have that lens but it´s way over my budged

There have been valuable asking about what I´m going to do with the lens and how much I want to spend and how heavy it may be.

I travel a bit and have been climbing montains and glaciers this summer but weight is not the biggest problem.
I´ve shot few birds this summer with the Tamron (70-300) mentioned above and would like to be able to do more of that. Also like to have the macro possibility. For this I would prefer 300mm but maybe I can get away with 200mm.
As mentioned above my budged is very thight and probably will be for some time so the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0L (~$550) is streching the limit.

Thx again for all the replies. This is a wonderful comunity of photographic nerds here.

Message edited by author 2004-08-16 13:59:20.
 08/16/2004 02:28:00 PM · #24
Since I´m started showing examples of what I´ve shot with the Tamron 70-300mm

Macros:



Nature:





Animals:


Comments apriciated

Edit: link fixing

Message edited by author 2004-08-16 14:37:36.
 08/28/2004 05:55:29 AM · #25
I really like the barb wire although maybe a slightly deeper DOF IMHO.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 11:59:50 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/11/2025 11:59:50 PM EDT.