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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Lens questions
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 14 of 14, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/17/2006 07:04:23 AM · #1
Hello

Havent been to active here, pretty stupid since i feel there is a rather good atmosphere here! And that people generally seem to help out one and other.

Anyways i wanted to ask i have

Canon 50 1,4 USM
Canon 17-40 4 L
Canon 300mm 4L IS usm

And well im pretty happy with the 300mm but i tend to not use it to much and thought hey why not change it for the 70-200 2,8 L instead.

Would this be a good setup

Canon 17-40 4 L
Canon 50 1,4 USM
(Canon 85 1,8 USM)
Canon 70-200 2,8 L

I shoot almost anything say landscape, portrait, candid and nature and so on! But 300mms seemed to really limit me a lot! I used the 70-200 4 L before!

Please help me here :)
Thanks!
 05/17/2006 07:25:08 AM · #2
I'd agree that 300mm on a 1.6-crop cam is a pretty darn long lens, and that's one heck of a gap you've got between 50mm and 300mm! Perhaps substituting the 70-200/2.8 and a 1.4x converter?

Message edited by author 2006-05-17 07:25:15.
 05/17/2006 07:29:03 AM · #3
He he yeah well forgott to say i have the 28-105 USM as well :)

Well still i think that your idea is even better a 70-200 2,8 with a 1,4 converter that would fit good!

Thank you!
 05/17/2006 08:15:19 AM · #4
I got my thread about lenses, many members advised me to take 300mm or 400mm, so why you now want to replace it? i told them that i don't need it but they advise me alot about it as it is great for wildlife, i agree that but we don't have wildlife and it is on 1.6 cameras get long focal length.
05/17/2006 08:36:54 AM · #5
teh 70-200 2.8 is a great lens for sports and portraits. you'll use it a lot more than the 300 i suspect.

My 70-210 2.8 tamron is my favorite lens i think. If it was a 50-200 it would be hands down, or if i had a 5D.
 05/17/2006 08:45:23 AM · #6
70-200/2.8 L without discussions!
 05/17/2006 08:46:10 AM · #7
Originally posted by UAE_Guy:
I got my thread about lenses, many members advised me to take 300mm or 400mm, so why you now want to replace it? i told them that i don't need it but they advise me alot about it as it is great for wildlife, i agree that but we don't have wildlife and it is on 1.6 cameras get long focal length.


Well i want to replace it since it just to good damn loong! Its tight and hard used i feel.

Sure its ok for animals that are shy say birds and other "exotic" animals! But thats about it if you want to take a portraite start running! Thats the thing you have to run like hell some times to get the shoot with a good cropp! :)

Well ill see what happends>!
 05/17/2006 09:35:00 AM · #8
I'm all for the 70-200L as I love mine, but seeing how you like nature too, any thought to the 100-400L? I don't have this one (yet), but people seem to be very happy with theirs.
 05/17/2006 02:56:53 PM · #9
Canon 17-40 4 L
Canon 50 1,4 USM
(Canon 85 1,8 USM)
Canon 70-200 2,8 L

The 70-200 is a very versatile zoom. Unless you really want shallow DOF or the speed, I find the 85 f1.8 redundant.

I would go with the 17-40, 50, 70-200L, and a TC if you occassionally need that supertele range.

I personally feel this combo is really the most versatile for cropped sensors.
Ultrawide like 10-22 for landscape/cityscape/photojournalism
Normal zoom like 24-70 f2.8 for general work and close quarters portraits.
70-200 for sports, portraits, longer distance work
then a supertele zoom like a 100-400L or Sigma 50-500 for animals, portraits, airshows, etc. A 2x TC would work if you don't do this a lot.

05/17/2006 03:15:05 PM · #10
A 70-200, with or without a teleconverter, will not get you images as long or as sharp as your 300. I'd say get the 70-200 and keep the 300. Or better yet, since you have that 28-105, get a Sigma 120-300 f2.8, it will be the new best lens in your bag.
 05/18/2006 07:46:57 AM · #11
Hey how come the folder didnt get blue in my profile, i didnt realise that anyone had been anwsering !

Well thanks all ill get on the investigation! Im not to keen on Sigma though but if i can try it i will!

Ill try and get my hands on a 70-200 2,8 L for a fair amount of dollares :)
 05/18/2006 09:05:53 AM · #12
If you have decided a 70-200 is the lens you need right now, and are willing to give Sigma a try, then you should consider Sigma's 70-200. The newer Sigma version is designated as a DG model meaning it has the anti-reflective coatings that the Canon L lenses don't have yet. And it is $300 less expensive. If IS is the feature you need than you'll have to spend the extra money and get the Canon IS model.
05/18/2006 09:10:00 AM · #13
Originally posted by coolhar:
If you have decided a 70-200 is the lens you need right now, and are willing to give Sigma a try, then you should consider Sigma's 70-200. The newer Sigma version is designated as a DG model meaning it has the anti-reflective coatings that the Canon L lenses don't have yet. And it is $300 less expensive. If IS is the feature you need than you'll have to spend the extra money and get the Canon IS model.


Well the 70-200 2,8 aint going to be a IS modell since i cant motivate myself to cough up so much more money on IS.

I been thinking about the Sigma 70-200 2,8 as well but as i heard and read it is optical the same as Canon right? But that the AutoFocus is slower and more noisy than on the Canon is this right?

Pros cons on the Canon vs Sigma?
 05/18/2006 10:22:03 AM · #14
Originally posted by PhotonicDelousions:
... Pros cons on the Canon vs Sigma?

I believe they are equal, or very nearly equal, in image quality and build quality. I use my Sigma for sports action shooting including bursts all the time. Using it with a 2x converter restricts you to only the center focus point but is good for wildlife shooting in good light. If it is slow and/or noisy in focusing I have not noticed that.

The Sigma DG is a more up to date model with it's anti-reflective coatings, and is $300 cheaper. It's tripod collar is pretty short and can get in the way of doing manual focusing, but there is an optional larger one available if you want to spend $150 to cure that problem.

The Canon will focus about a foot closer, and it's white.

Both are about the same size and weight.

Message edited by author 2006-05-18 10:24:34.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:11:50 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:11:50 PM EDT.