| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2006 11:32:04 PM · #1 |
| i have a canon digital rebel. and I am really wanting to be able to take pictures from farther away than I am able to. so I am hoping you can giv eme your input on an inexpesive zwoom lens? |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 11:34:26 PM · #2 |
Whats your budget and desired zoom range? One mans inexpensive is anothers outrageously expensive :)
This is certainly a nice "inexpensive lens" and for sale by a fellow DPCer
Message edited by author 2006-11-09 23:36:32. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 11:43:24 PM · #3 |
I just picked up a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG lens for about $200. So far I have taken about 100 pictures with it and I have to say I like it. I have had one lens error so far but it has not returned.
Here is a pic I took last weekend. This is at about 180mm from about 35 feet away.
Message edited by author 2006-11-21 09:27:07. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 12:04:05 AM · #4 |
Can't go wrong with the Tamron 28-75. But, what is the range your looking for and what is your budget?
Message edited by author 2006-11-10 00:04:15.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 12:09:46 AM · #5 |
I agree with  tjinguy I also like the Sigma 70-300mm DG APO |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 12:14:30 AM · #6 |
| At $559, the Canon 70-300 IS would be my first choice for a long zoom under $800. It's image-stabilized, compact and very sharp. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 02:25:04 AM · #7 |
Mmmm. 70-200 f4L, for around $500. I had one before getting the 2.8 IS version, sold the f4L for nearly what I paid for it. And ya know what? I bought another f4L recently to use as a backup for the lunker and as my walkaround lens. It's that good, L build quality, lightweight so the IS doesn't matter much esp since the cameras do well in high ISO, gorgeous portraits, tack sharp, and great on action too.
Last week near sundown, in the shade
 |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 02:40:10 AM · #8 |
Someone was going to say it anyway, so I guess I will do it first. Get the canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS //www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8454&A=details&Q=&sku=162616&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
It is not the fastest zoom lens canon makes (IS helps), but it could be one of the most versatile. I own one and it is by far my favorite lens. With your rebel it becomes a 160-600 lens, and 600 is plenty of reach for almost everyone.
Beg, borrow, or steal, but whatever you do try and get your hands on this lens.
On a side note, some people bitch that it is a push pull type zoom, but I have no complaints about that system.
here are a few shots that I have taken with it:
//www.deviantart.com/deviation/42799934/
//www.deviantart.com/deviation/41212938
//www.deviantart.com/deviation/40464821
//www.deviantart.com/deviation/38971133/
//www.deviantart.com/deviation/38971612
//www.deviantart.com/deviation/37542705
//www.deviantart.com/deviation/34697028
Many more examples on that site but those are a good representation.
Message edited by author 2006-11-10 02:42:20. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 02:47:47 AM · #9 |
Here are a couple of my favorite zoom photos from my Tamron 75-300mm lens. In my camera, it is the equivalent to 113-450mm.
Notice the sharpness and detail...
 and 
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 11:40:36 PM · #10 |
ack. sorry about not replying about my budget. i actually forgot i posted this.
I dont have a budget at this time. I was hoping that this thread would give me an idea of what my budjet will likely have to be.
I have to do some research into the lenses suggested and then I will likely come back with more questions.
thanks! |
|
|
|
11/11/2006 06:26:14 AM · #11 |
Since shortly after I bought my first SLR, the 400D/XTi, I concluded that I just had to have the 70-200 F/4L when it comes out in the IS version. Which it has now.
So, someone tell me what better lens I can get, just to convince me I am doing the right thing!
I need to travel as light as possible. Was looking at the above mentioned 100-400, but it is twice as heavy and not as fast. I mainly shoot handheld (that is why I want the IS version), as I seldom have the possibility to carry my tripod with me. I love to do candids, as I prefer my pictures to depict life as it is, not someone smiling, looking straight into the camera and doing the V-sign. When I say candid I also mean where people know I am there, but I like to avoid in-your-face intimidating shots.
I have heard that it is a very sharp lens, so compared to a 300mm, I might get about the same from a crop in 200mm, because of the good sharpness?
At almost the same weight, it is a question for me about
1) Is there a better lens for me?
2) Is the IS worth the double price from the non-IS?
Btw, I have a speedlite 580ex now, will it give me any help towards 200mm (not so much for candids!) but for indoor shooting? I know it is quite powerful and that it ... zooms! Cool gadget :-)
|
|
|
|
11/11/2006 07:21:44 AM · #12 |
| I have a canon 28-135mm for sale if interested. it is a great lens, lens is only 10 months old and I have all the orginal stuff it came with. I am just ready to upgrade and have a wider L glass lens. Let me know if your are interested |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 03:30:54 AM · #13 |
Sigma also has a 100-300 f/4 which has excellent optics if you want a bit more reach... no IS though.
If you can afford the 70-200 f/4 IS... might be worth it... The only drawback will be reach.
For yet more reach you could also have a look at the Tokina 80-400 |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 04:30:04 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Sigma also has a 100-300 f/4 which has excellent optics if you want a bit more reach... no IS though.
If you can afford the 70-200 f/4 IS... might be worth it... The only drawback will be reach.
For yet more reach you could also have a look at the Tokina 80-400 |
The Sigma 80-400 has the optical stabiliser, which is priceless when using such a long lens.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 07:51:50 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Sigma also has a 100-300 f/4 which has excellent optics if you want a bit more reach... no IS though.
If you can afford the 70-200 f/4 IS... might be worth it... The only drawback will be reach.
For yet more reach you could also have a look at the Tokina 80-400 |
The Sigma 80-400 has the optical stabiliser, which is priceless when using such a long lens. |
Huh?
I thought only Canon made IS (or equivalent) for Canon SLRs ...
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 03:24:18 PM · #16 |
| canon only make IS for their lenses - doesn't mean that another manufacturer can't come up with their own tech.. |
|
|
|
11/22/2006 02:02:17 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bobster:
canon only make IS for their lenses - doesn't mean that another manufacturer can't come up with their own tech.. |
... but I did not notice until it was pointed out, above, that any manufacturer apart from Canon, did IS/OS for Canons.
I still think I am going for the new 70-200 F/4 L with IS. Yes, the 70-300 non-DO looks nice for the price, although not L and not as fast, but what is the practical difference in image clarity between these two? I have tried to compare the pictures here, and both the 70-300 and the 70-200 (non IS 4.0 L version) seem quite sharp. 80-400 alternative, does sound interesting, but it is same price, not Canon L, and twice as heavy, soeh ...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 11:35:45 PM EDT.
