Long lens feedback - DPChallenge Forums

01/02/2007 10:14:02 AM · #1

I'm looking to get a long lens for my 400d and was looking for some feed back on them...

1. Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG AF Macro Lens ($229.98)
2. Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro ($499.98)
3. Sigma 18-200MM DG AF Zoom Lens ($549.98)
4. Canon 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 III USM ($249.95)

I had also thought about the Canon 70-300 with IS ($750) but thought the extra $400 over the 75-300 with out IS was not worth it...

Thanks in advance,

-dave

*edit* added prices in cdn dollars for budget example

Message edited by author 2007-01-02 10:27:43.

Simms

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/02/2007 10:18:09 AM · #2

How about the Canon 70-200 F4 L (non-IS) as an alternative to what you have listed there.. Granted its not up there with the 300mm lense, but on your 1.6 crop factor camera its defintely worth considering for the price. Also its F4 throughout the entire focal range, always a plus. A nice introduction to the L series for you (and white so you wil stand out!!)

Message edited by author 2007-01-02 10:19:05.

01/02/2007 10:22:16 AM · #3

Thanks, I will concider that one but its a little higher than the budget allowed at the moment ;) and it looks HUGE lol

-dave

pamelasue

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/02/2007 10:24:07 AM · #4

I have the Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro ... the APO version is the higher end glass from Sigma ... I'm pretty happy with it's reach, although it gets a little soft on the long end ... One of my deciding factors was the Macro capability ... even though it's not true macro at 1:1 ... it's still better than nothing ... and the price was right at $200

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/02/2007 10:33:30 AM · #5

Originally posted by dknourek:

Thanks, I will concider that one but its a little higher than the budget allowed at the moment ;) and it looks HUGE lol

-dave

That 70-200 f4L you can get for abut the same price as the #3 lense in your list. Also it's not huge, it's longish but very light.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/02/2007 10:36:42 AM · #6

NO !!!!

Originally posted by :

4. Canon 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 III USM ($249.95)

Message edited by author 2007-01-02 10:37:48.

01/02/2007 10:40:04 AM · #7

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by dknourek:
Thanks, I will concider that one but its a little higher than the budget allowed at the moment ;) and it looks HUGE lol

-dave

That 70-200 f4L you can get for abut the same price as the #3 lense in your list. Also it's not huge, it's longish but very light.

Just checked on pricing at a local store here and they have it listed at $769.95cdn :( not sure if I want to put out that kind of cash atm...

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/02/2007 10:41:11 AM · #8

Originally posted by soup:

NO !!!!

Originally posted by :
4. Canon 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 III USM ($249.95)

er ok, Ill scratch that one if you can tell me why not? :)

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

01/02/2007 10:41:17 AM · #9

Ahh sorry, didn't realize those wre cnd dollars.

W.R.Miller

Canon EOS-50D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/02/2007 11:11:14 AM · #10

I just received the Canon 70-300mm IS for Christmas and couldn't be happier. This is a super sharp lens and is much better than it predecessors. The image quality of the Canon 75-300mm III can not be compared to the quality you get with the 70-300 IS even if neither of them had IS. The Canon 70-300 IS has a UD element - something that is usually only used in Canon L grade lenses. The 70-300 IS has been called a hidden L lens by many professional review sites because of it's excellent sharpness image quality.

Just my 2-cents... I couldn't be happier with it and B&H has it for $539.95 USD.

Hope this helps!!!

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/02/2007 11:21:30 AM · #11

Originally posted by W.R.Miller:

Thanks a lot for the feedback on that lens, I'm still learning about the different lenses and the different grades of qualities which has made me dizzy more than once and its hard trying to take the word of the guy behind the counter as you don't know if hes actually trying to help or just get another lens out the door, thus why Im asking here... I have found another local place that I can get that one for $699 but still a little unsure as it is a lot of money atm for me. I'd love to order from B&H but after duty and shipping its sometimes more than getting it locally converted atm that one would be $629.42cdn+duty+S&H :(

-dave

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/02/2007 11:38:32 AM · #12

It sort of depends upon how serious you are about photography. If you're just taking snapshots of the family, then the lens quality might not matter as much. BUT- if you intend to pursue photography as a career or serious hobby, I'd save up for the Canon 70-300 IS. Even without the stabilization, the image quality is considerably better than the other lenses on your list. You might be content with another lens in the short term, but once you use a really GOOD lens you'll regret saving money on lesser glass.

W.R.Miller

Canon EOS-50D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/02/2007 11:42:20 AM · #13

I totally agree... Been there, done that... ;)

Originally posted by scalvert:

01/02/2007 11:44:49 AM · #14

Originally posted by scalvert:

So far its turning in to a serious hobby, not sure if I'm going to pursue it as a career but I could eventually go that route as I really enjoy it and it gets my arse off of the couch :)

-dave

Prof_Fate

01/02/2007 11:59:58 AM · #15

What do you want the long lens for? That will be a factor in which is hte best choice.

The 28-300 is a 'film' lens, an all-in-one if you will, a 10:1 zoom. The 18-200 is the 'digital' equivalent. No lens can do everything, so compromises are made. To get 10:1 zoom you'll get more distortion for sure, and probably lower image quality overall. For some it's worth the trade off to have only one lens.

IS is nice if you handhold a lot. If you're shooting wildlife then you're probably using a tripod so IS is not used anyway. For sports it can be nice, but many sports are played indoors or at night (football) so a fast lens is more useful (f2.8 or f4) than is IS (optimally you want both).

The sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO is a very good lens, and a very good value. You would be happy with it for most purposes. Many of the canon 75-300 lenses are a bit soft from 200-300mm. the newer ones (released in the last 12-18 mos) i hear are better. YOu cold use the sigma for a year and sell it and your 'cost' would be maybe $50 dollars (cost of purchase less what you get when you sell it). This gives you a lens now, and time to save up for a better one.

The canon 70-200 f4 is an excellent lens. The problem with it is going to be you'll see the flaws in all your other lenses and want to upgrade them too! LOL

01/02/2007 01:01:18 PM · #16

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Ok head spinning again :) found reviews of a few of the lenses and I'm starting to see your point with the L series as with the Canon 70-200 F4 but I was quite surprised at the performance of the sigma 28-300 f3.5-6.3 although its not quite up to L glass, compared to some of the other lenses in that review its surprisingly sharp at 300mm where to me anyway looks slightly better than the sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 unless its camera shake that's throwing the latter off to me that looks like diffusion blur/glow?

I really appreciate the comments though as I'm getting a lot of great info from everyone and if someone has more to add PLEASE DO :)

Thanks again for your time

-dave