Author | Thread |
|
04/11/2005 08:36:29 AM · #1 |
Everything I have seen or read so far suggests that it is a bit of a sleeper i.e. it has very good optical quality for a budget lens but its (slight) disadvantages - light weight construction/plastic mount; rotating front element; length change on focusing; not FTM:- appear to put folk off it.
So, is anyone here using it especially on their APS-C cameras - 300D, 20D, 350D ? And if so, have you posted any images and what do you think of it etc?
TIA :)
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 08:39:30. |
|
|
04/11/2005 08:52:20 AM · #2 |
Have you looked at the new Sigma 18-200 3.5/6.3 or Tamron 18-200 as an alternative. This would give you a better low end. The Sigma is around $350.
I have the Sigma 18-125 3.5/5.6 and it's a great lens. Very sharp, good close up capabilities, small, lightweight, non-rotating front. If the 18-200 Sigma is has similar properties, I would get one myself. In that case, I would probably even use it instead of my Canon 70-200/F4L which I find too big to carry around and too powerful at the low end. |
|
|
04/11/2005 09:03:11 AM · #3 |
Many thanks for the feedback.
I was not looking at the superzooms because I have been quite ahppy with the kit 18-55mm lens.
But what I have seen good reports on is the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER II & that is less expensive than the Canon 55-200
Oh, why are these decsions so hard? ;~)
|
|
|
04/11/2005 09:06:40 AM · #4 |
See this thread about about the 55-200mm
ED: Save your money and go with the Canon EF 70-200mm 4L...you won't be dissatisfied. I used both my 70-200mm 4L and my Tamron 28-300mm XR Di LD (if) Macro on the MS Walk in San Diego yesterday.
There is no comparison performance or quality...The 4L just kicks butt...the tamron shots are usable but required a ton of post processing to be almost as good as the 4L shots.
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 09:18:41.
|
|
|
04/11/2005 11:17:08 AM · #5 |
Thanks for the pointer, I could not find that one on a search.
From a quick read through both the Canon 55-200 and the Sigma 70-300 get respect, with some (here?) saying that the Sigma loses something in sharpness above 200mm. But looking on pbase both lens make a good showing PPed by how much is not clear but the posted images speak for themselves.
Originally posted by awpollard: ED: Save your money and go with the Canon EF 70-200mm 4L...you won't be dissatisfied. I used both my 70-200mm 4L and my Tamron 28-300mm XR Di LD (if) Macro on the MS Walk in San Diego yesterday.
There is no comparison performance or quality...The 4L just kicks butt...the tamron shots are usable but required a ton of post processing to be almost as good as the 4L shots. |
Yes, the 70-200 f4L is one kick a**e lens and the price is not massive but is a lot greater than either of the more humble ones I am looking at. Saving towards a better lens is right but if you want to take pictures in the meantime you have have something that will at least do the job creditably.
So, what to choose on image quality at the current budget?
:) |
|
|
04/11/2005 08:12:06 PM · #6 |
On the dpreview forum there a pro user using the 55-200 as street lens on his 1DS
He did this image test //mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/lens_tests/Can55_200_1DS_Crops.jpg?0.7306087910060958
Which suggest to me that up to 100% crops @ 200mm on an APS-C sensored camera will be highly usable. I know the 1DS is >11MP but that is a full sized sensor, so I am making an empirical judgement that the 350D 8MP smaller sensor will give usable (up to) 100% crops.
Or do delude myself? :~) |
|
|
04/11/2005 10:20:35 PM · #7 |
Visitor,
I'm not a paying member and I'm too lazy to crop and post pics but I've both the Canon 55-200 and the Sigma 70-300 APO. Optically I think they are both good for the type of lens that they are. Optically, I cannot tell the difference between the two. However, here are my impressions of the two.
Canon uses a 52mm filter (kit is 58mm), it's light, cheaper felling, has a plastic mount. It focuses very fast, it's quite. I mainly use it to get quickly focused portraits of kids and pets that won't hold still. The Sigma is bigger and noticably heavier, zoom rings are well damped, it takes 58mm filters, has a metal mount, comes with a bag and a hood. It focuse noticably slower and noisier, especially in dim light. I use it when I'm shooting birds, stationary subjects, and when I want a 480mm in 35mm format reach. I find the Sigma a bit long for portrait work.
Soon I'll have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for portraits and will use the Canon if I want a telephoto that is light and can be carried all day.
|
|