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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Which lens
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 15 of 15, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/16/2005 04:36:35 AM · #1
I am considering getting the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM. I was wondering what people that had this lens thought of it. The other lens I was looking at instead is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM. I really would like the extra reach of the 300 but is the quality going to make it not worth it?

The other lens I have been looking at is the Canon EF-S 10-22mm vs. the Tokina AF 12-24mm. I like the canon but am weary about buying an
ef-s lens.

Any opinions would be very helpful thank you.

Nick

08/16/2005 04:39:38 AM · #2
This has been discussed a LOT on DPC.

See these threads
08/16/2005 11:54:54 AM · #3
should check Bob Atkins eval of the 75-300. It's soft past 200, so you should think of it more as a 75-200 IS with an emergency 200-300 that gives soft images. The L lens is almost universally liked but it's a little bit more in price. I didn't find any good reviews but there is a description type review on photo.net.
I'd recommend either a consumer grade 70-300 from other makers for under $200 or if your budget allows, getting the 70-200 f4L lens instead. If you really want a sharp 70ish to 300 zoom, an excellent one is by Sigma 120-300mm EX f2.8, according to PC Photo (I think), they say it's comparable to primes at respective focal lengths. Only problem is that is costs $2000.
As for the wideangles, I've never seen a magazine test between the two but here is a comparason between the two here.
//www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_674.shtml
good luck

Message edited by author 2005-08-16 11:57:33.
08/16/2005 11:55:48 AM · #4
Don't get me started on that lens!
08/16/2005 12:27:39 PM · #5
From what I've been reading, if you're on a budget and looking for a 70-300, the Sigma APO Macro Super II DG.... (why so much in a name???) for about $220 seems to be the way to go.

I've also heard the complaints of softness over 200mm on these budget lens is not so much the lens as it is the high zoom and being hand held. If you use a pod or a fast shutter results should be better?

But, if you're concerned a lot about quality, you need to spend much more $$$
08/16/2005 12:38:27 PM · #6
Well, for poor folks like me, a $500 lens isn't exactly a "budget" lens, and I'm thrilled to death with my Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM. It's been wonderful, and with my limited (read NON-PRO) skills it suits my needs just fine. If you're bored, peruse my portfolio and you can see some of the shots I've taken with it (there are many, especially any of the zoo shots). If you don't do this for a living and you're not selling or even printing things bigger than 8x10, don't let the people who scoff at "budget" lenses discourage you. It's the best I can afford, and frankly, there's no sense in me spending a ton of money on a hobby. If you're like me, you won't worry about what they say and buy what you can afford and work it to the best of your abilities. :)
08/16/2005 12:53:20 PM · #7
I forget the magazine's name (was reading in WH Smiths at the time, but they did a round up on all the lenses in this range (Canon, Sigma, Tamron and a Nikkor). The Sigma APO Macro super 2 came out on top by quite a large margin.

I bought it a while ago, make sure you get the APO 2 version, it has a red ring around the lop of the lens. I have has some ace shots off it, even at 300. There is just a touch of softness at 300, and of course camera shake is more of a problem at this range but for the money you cant go wrong.

//www.mindseyeimages.co.uk/Children/Katie%202.htm
//www.mindseyeimages.co.uk/Children/Katie%203.htm
//www.mindseyeimages.co.uk/Commercial/ripple.htm

the above are some shots I took using it.

Message edited by author 2005-08-16 12:54:28.
08/16/2005 01:54:41 PM · #8
I tested the 75-300mm and was underwhelmed by it. Over 200mm it was just not crisp, and in the mid-range it wasn't as good as the 70-200 f/4L, which I ended up buying. It's a little pricier but the build quality is outstanding and it holds its value very well in the resale market, a real factor since soemday I may trade it in for the f/2.8 version.

I have the 10-22mm Canon WA, and it's absolutely spectacular. The ef-s part, to me, is an asset, not a liability, in this range. The lens has been specifically optimized for the 1.6 crop sensors, and you can see the effectiveness of that in the images. I'm not worried about a possible future move to a full-frame sensor because even if I do that, I'd keep the 20D for backup and, frankly, 10mm is too wide to perform well in full frame, as far as I'm concerned.

If I ever get a full-frame body, I'll spring for the 17-40L for that one :-)

Robt.
08/16/2005 02:35:43 PM · #9
Originally posted by laurielblack:

Well, for poor folks like me, a $500 lens isn't exactly a "budget" lens, and I'm thrilled to death with my Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM. It's been wonderful, and with my limited (read NON-PRO) skills it suits my needs just fine. If you're bored, peruse my portfolio and you can see some of the shots I've taken with it (there are many, especially any of the zoo shots). If you don't do this for a living and you're not selling or even printing things bigger than 8x10, don't let the people who scoff at "budget" lenses discourage you. It's the best I can afford, and frankly, there's no sense in me spending a ton of money on a hobby. If you're like me, you won't worry about what they say and buy what you can afford and work it to the best of your abilities. :)


By "budget" lens I meant the Sigma at $220 and the Tamron at $160 (I'm considering getting one, it'll be used outdoors only in the AZ sunshine so I don't have much need for IS).
08/16/2005 04:11:29 PM · #10
I have the 75-300 IS USM. I'm not really impressed. I should have held out for the 70-200 f/4L too. They say it's better than the 75-300 IS USM even with a tele-converter. There's also the 70-300 DO IS, the one with the green ring which is supposed to be great.
08/16/2005 04:23:32 PM · #11
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:

I forget the magazine's name (was reading in WH Smiths at the time, but they did a round up on all the lenses in this range (Canon, Sigma, Tamron and a Nikkor). The Sigma APO Macro super 2 came out on top by quite a large margin.

I bought it a while ago, make sure you get the APO 2 version, it has a red ring around the lop of the lens. I have has some ace shots off it, even at 300. There is just a touch of softness at 300, and of course camera shake is more of a problem at this range but for the money you cant go wrong.

I think it's Practical Phototgraphy from the UK about 2-3 issues ago.

//www.mindseyeimages.co.uk/Children/Katie%202.htm
//www.mindseyeimages.co.uk/Children/Katie%203.htm
//www.mindseyeimages.co.uk/Commercial/ripple.htm

the above are some shots I took using it.

08/16/2005 04:25:38 PM · #12
Originally posted by laurielblack:

Well, for poor folks like me, a $500 lens isn't exactly a "budget" lens, and I'm thrilled to death with my Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM. It's been wonderful, and with my limited (read NON-PRO) skills it suits my needs just fine. If you're bored, peruse my portfolio and you can see some of the shots I've taken with it (there are many, especially any of the zoo shots). If you don't do this for a living and you're not selling or even printing things bigger than 8x10, don't let the people who scoff at "budget" lenses discourage you. It's the best I can afford, and frankly, there's no sense in me spending a ton of money on a hobby. If you're like me, you won't worry about what they say and buy what you can afford and work it to the best of your abilities. :)


Gasp... You mean throwing money isn't going to make for better images??? ;) I saw your shots and they are great, once again, the limiting factor for most of us is the photographer, not the equipment.
08/16/2005 06:10:45 PM · #13
Originally posted by yido:

If you really want a sharp 70ish to 300 zoom, an excellent one is by Sigma 120-300mm EX f2.8, according to PC Photo (I think), they say it's comparable to primes at respective focal lengths.

Doesn't do too well in terms of CA, according to SportShooter members at least. There is a very much a 'If it isn't Canon don't buy it' approach..
08/16/2005 06:18:25 PM · #14
Hey!
I have an almost brand new Canon 75-300 USM for sale. Used for only a couple of months. Then I decided to throw good money at the 70-200 4/L to improve the pics .... right. The 75-300 is nice for a little extra reach and is definately smaller for carrying. The 70-200 f4/L is definately sharper but it is also much heavier and bigger. Yup I could be talked out of the 75-300 for the right price.
08/16/2005 07:27:23 PM · #15
Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by yido:

If you really want a sharp 70ish to 300 zoom, an excellent one is by Sigma 120-300mm EX f2.8, according to PC Photo (I think), they say it's comparable to primes at respective focal lengths.

Doesn't do too well in terms of CA, according to SportShooter members at least. There is a very much a 'If it isn't Canon don't buy it' approach..


Photographic magazine's review doesn't even mention any CA but highly recommends it.
//www.photographic.com/productreviews/lenses/204sigma/

According to Popular Photography's tests, it outperforms the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS at 200mm.
//www.popphoto.com/assets/download/562003183517.pdf
//www.popphoto.com/assets/download/5202003163559.pdf

I haven't heard of any CA complaints regarding the Sigma 120-300. Even if so, their new DG coating should help take care of that.

OT, I don't think the poster is considering this lens. We should stick to the topic.

Message edited by author 2005-08-16 19:54:00.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/25/2019 12:09:53 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 08/25/2019 12:09:53 PM EDT.