Lens advice? - DPChallenge Forums

06/11/2004 11:15:53 PM · #1

Hi all,

I just ordered a Canon EOS-300D (Yay!) and am looking for a good zoom lens that can take both telephoto and macro shots. I have the choice narrowed down to the following lenses:

1. Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super ($209)
2. Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II/III USM EF ($269)
3. Tamron 28-300mm f/5.6-6.3 ($399)
4. Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5 - 5.6 USM ($465)
5. Canon - 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM EF ($509)

Sorry for such a newbie question, but it looks like those Canon lenses were not designed for macro shots. Is the main difference how close you can get to the subject with the lens?

Cost is definitely a factor, so I'm having a hard time not choosing the Sigma 70-300 -- especially since this is my first SLR and I want to learn more before investing a lot in really good glass. Any advice on which of these lenses is best for zoomed-in action shots and nice, close macros? Or would another lens (perhaps with a teleconverter) be better?

Thanks in advance for your help!

hsteg

Fujifilm X-T20

06/11/2004 11:18:31 PM · #2

are you willing to pay about 500 for a 70-200 f4L?

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/11/2004 11:30:41 PM · #3

Originally posted by PhilipDyer:

None of the above,get an L lense :-)

06/11/2004 11:31:26 PM · #4

Originally posted by hsteg:

are you willing to pay about 500 for a 70-200 f4L?

I actually intended to include that one in the list, but I was having trouble locting it on Ritzcamera. It looks like a great lens, but how is it for taking macros?

06/11/2004 11:49:18 PM · #5

even though the sigma says that it's macro, it really isn't a true macro lens. to get good macros you have to have a dedicated macro lens. all the other lenses you listed are telephoto. the macro on the sigma lens isn't comparable to a true macro lens. for the occasional macro shot it will work, but it's not for someone who wants to shoot a lot of macros.

hsteg

Fujifilm X-T20

06/11/2004 11:52:51 PM · #6

try bhphoto.com or adorama.com for camera stuff, not just ritz.

06/12/2004 12:22:58 AM · #7

Originally posted by nborton:

Thanks. Only a small percentage of my shots are macros, but I do want the ability to take them with this kind of lens until I buy a dedicated macro lens. Can anyone tell me how the Canon 70-200 f/4 L does with macro shots?

digistoune

Canon EOS-20D

06/12/2004 12:46:07 AM · #8

Hey Phillip,
Congrats on your new 300D - I think you're going to like it. I sure like mine in the few short days I've had the pleasure of shooting with it.

You should absolutely check B&H and Adorama for lenses - the cost savings will be substantial! And not to ruffle any feathers but don't feel like you will be doomed to sub-par results without 'L' glass. You'll do fine with any of the lenses you listed. Unless, of course, you have a tree in your yard that grows money! Seriously though, go to a local camera store with your camera and try the different lenses. When you get home, download your pics and see which lenses pleases you most and order that bad boy off the internet.

Good luck!

06/12/2004 12:53:10 AM · #9

Originally posted by PhilipDyer:

Originally posted by nborton:
even though the sigma says that it's macro, it really isn't a true macro lens. to get good macros you have to have a dedicated macro lens. all the other lenses you listed are telephoto. the macro on the sigma lens isn't comparable to a true macro lens. for the occasional macro shot it will work, but it's not for someone who wants to shoot a lot of macros.

Thanks. Only a small percentage of my shots are macros, but I do want the ability to take them with this kind of lens until I buy a dedicated macro lens. Can anyone tell me how the Canon 70-200 f/4 L does with macro shots?

the 70-200 f.4L has no macro ability at all, and as far as i know all the other lenses you listed other than the sigma don't either.

06/12/2004 01:00:40 AM · #10

Thanks Nick, Ellen, Harrison and Kosta. I think I'll go for that Canon 70-200 f.4L and then spring for a dedicated macro lens later if I can't take the kind of pictures I want with the lenses I have. I appreciate all the help!

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

06/12/2004 01:16:08 AM · #11

The 70-200 f/4 L is downright lousy for macros (closest focus is 1.2m, I think). The kit lens available with the 300D can focus to a pretty decent 18". Best bet... get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and a macro coupler from B&H (total cost less than $80). You'll have a sharp, versatile lens for low light, shallow DOF and portraits, and the coupler allows you to attach it (reversed) onto another lens for REAL macro shots.

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/12/2004 01:42:38 AM · #12

Originally posted by digistoune:

Seriously though, go to a local camera store with your camera and try the different lenses. When you get home, download your pics and see which lenses pleases you most and order that bad boy off the internet.

I, being a staunch supporter of local economics would advise that before you actually buy off the internet, try printing out several quotes on lenses that you like and take them to the local shop and see if you can get a price match. You may not get as low a price as you can get from the internet, but you'll get local support and keep your money in your own community.... Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

06/12/2004 01:43:43 AM · #13

Originally posted by scalvert:

The camera comes with the 50mm f/1.8, and I figured I could work with that as well. I've seen lots of examples of the possible coupling shots from Jacko's collection. :-)

hsteg

Fujifilm X-T20

06/12/2004 01:44:46 AM · #14

Originally posted by TooCool:

Originally posted by digistoune:
Seriously though, go to a local camera store with your camera and try the different lenses. When you get home, download your pics and see which lenses pleases you most and order that bad boy off the internet.

I, being a staunch supporter of local economics would advise that before you actually buy off the internet, try printing out several quotes on lenses that you like and take them to the local shop and see if you can get a price match. You may not get as low a price as you can get from the internet, but you'll get local support and keep your money in your own community.... Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

my only local store is ritz.

06/12/2004 03:17:52 AM · #15

Originally posted by scalvert:

the focus distance isn't always a good measurement of the macro ablitity. as an example, the canon 50mm 1.8 can focus at 1.5' while the canon 100mm macro can focus at 1'. however, the magnification on the 50mm is 1:6.66, while the 100mm macro is 1:1.

just for example. i did a quick comparison of the two lenses 50mm vs 105mm macro. with the sigma 105mm macro replacing the canon 100mm macro. these are not masterpieces by any means, but quick examples.

canon 50mm 1.8II at its closest focusing distance

sigma 105mm macro at its closest focusing distance

just for kicks, sigma 105mm macro with the 50mm reversed (handheld). i didn't have my niftey coupler on hand.

edit: one more thing. these are all uncropped.

Message edited by author 2004-06-12 03:20:20.

06/12/2004 03:53:58 AM · #16

Thanks for posting those examples, Nick. That helps a lot.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

06/12/2004 04:27:07 AM · #17

Just a couple of points about the 70-200/4L..

1) It's only 200mm - well below your other choices
2) If you want a 1.4x teleconverter for it, the lens will be f/5.6 throughout the range, much higher than your other choices

The 70-200/4L is a nice lens, and it's good value for its price, but I would be very careful in selecting it until you expect to take photos in very bright conditions.

I was recently going to buy a 85/1.2 (notoriously slow focus), and the only thing that saved me ~$800 was reading Fred Miranda Reviews. I highly suggest you do that before shelling out circa $500.

Btw, I own a 70-200/2.8L (bit on the expensive side) and a Canon 75-300/4-5.6 USM. Within each price bracket, I recommend either.

06/12/2004 05:52:07 AM · #18

Thanks, Paul. I was actually just looking at Fred's site when I decided to check this thread again - good advice!

wewillexplore

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/12/2004 07:04:18 AM · #19

Originally posted by PhilipDyer:

1. Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super ($209)
2. Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II/III USM EF ($269)

Whatever you do, don't bother with these two lenses. If you get a regular ole 75-300mm lens, the Tamron is the best in its class. That's what I'm using and it's fairly cheap. (I got mine for $120 at a local retailer). It takes SUPERB pics (too lazy to post one right now) but again - same thing with the macros. Min focus distance sucks.

Good luck!

M

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/12/2004 07:12:04 AM · #20

Hi Phil,

I did a search on B&H on eaach of them and here are the magnifications:

1. 1:2
2. 1:4
3. 1:2.9
4. 1:3.5
5. 1:3.9

the Canon 70-200mm F4 ... 1:4.8.

I'M surprised. I was going to show you that all those zoom lenses would not be good fo macros because of minimum magnifications. However I was totally surprised when I saw the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super. 1:2 is very decent and at 36 inches closest focus distance you'll be able to take pretty good macros of bees without fear.

Now I don't know about the sharpness and the overall quality. You'll need to talk to other owners and look at online reviews.

If you really want to do a lot of macros, get a macro lens (Sigma 105mm which I have, Tamron 90mm or the Canon 100mm).

Originally posted by PhilipDyer:

ddmckinney1954

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/12/2004 07:45:30 AM · #21

I have the Sigma 28-200mm and the Canon 75-300mm USM
Love the Sigma....not sure about the Canon yet..am considering getting the 70-300mm APO Sigma to replace the Canon 75-300 plus the 18-55mm that came with the rebel.
I found the Sigma on ebay at a great price 151 but paid 269 for my Canon.

06/12/2004 08:23:59 AM · #22

Thanks, Diana and Jacko. That 1:2 magnification on the Sigma was another key factor in my original leaning toward with that lens. I definitely want that L glass at some point, but I still may start with the Sigma - I'm waffling like a campaigning politician. Looks like I'll be reading through all the reviews I can find for a little while.

06/12/2004 01:13:28 PM · #23

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

i agree that reading reviews is a smart thing to do. however, on the bit about the 70-200L being f/4 and only being able to take pictures in bright conditions isn't really true when comparing it to the other lenses you have listed.

the 70-200mm L can sustain an f/4 aperture throughout the length of the zoom. in that it can be f/4 at 70mm and f/4 at 200mm. all the others but #4 start out at the same aperture as the L lens. the key is though that they end with smaller apertures (f/5.6), which means that at the full reach of the zoom (300mm) they are all going to let in less light than the L will at it's full zoom.

another thing to think about is that even at 200mm of the full 300mm, the aperture is going to be smaller than the L is at 200mm.

as an example:

the sigma (#1 in your list) and the biggest aperture value (greatest amount of light let in) you can have at each distance throughout the zoom.

f/4 from 70mm to 135mm
f/4.5 from 135mm to somewhere near 165mm
f/5 from ~165mm to ~220mm
f/5.6 from ~220mm to 300mm

as you can see from the example at 200mm the 70-200mm L will still be f/4 while the sigma will be f/5. which means that the L is actually the best choice out of the 5 lenses you listed as far as aperture goes.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D