Topic: Looking for a longer Lens.. (Read 4244 times)

sxty8goats · « **on:** December 20, 2005, 02:03:25 pm »

As I may be out of a job soon I think it is a good time to buy a new lens. Smile

Any how. I really want a longer lens with me when I travel to Austrilla this Feb in about a months time. I have a 17-40 f/4L and a 50mm f/1.4 (love this lens). I'm looking for reach. Here are my options: (20D is my camera body, 1.6 multiplyer)

Canon 70-200 f/4L,
Pros,
L glass is good glass,
Cons,
L Glass is surounded by white metal.
F/4 makes it primarly an outdoor lens. At times I wish I had a little reach with my 50mm.

Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS
Pros,
Longer Reach
Black
Cheepest of the three
Cons'
Not L but great reviews.
Have read descriptions claiming it is "plasticy"

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8
Pros,
Faster than the two above
Black
Cons,
I don't know anything about the Quality
Most expensive (but $1000 less than the Canon 70-200 f/2.Cool
Bigger then the two above.

The canon DO and f/2.8 70-200's are out of my reach. The sigma is close to out of my reach.

Any thoughts? Also, has anyone experianced Sigma's 30mm f/1.4? I love my 50mm but it is a little close in a room. A 30mm would give me a 48mm equiv.

Thanks for any input..

PJ

Sheldon N · « **Reply #1 on:** December 20, 2005, 11:14:58 pm »

I personally would choose the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L for the top notch image quality and lighter weight/better build (vs the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.

. Yes, it would be an outdoor only lens.

Then I would save up or stretch the budget to add a Canon 85mm f/1.8 prime. Definitely a telephoto perspective (135mm equivalent) but it is compact, fast to focus, and has a fast aperture (so it can be used indoors). It also has amazing image quality, bitingly sharp all the way to wide open.

Hope this helps!

Sheldon

macgyver · « **Reply #2 on:** December 21, 2005, 02:43:37 am »

The Sigma will be far more versitile than the "L".

Just sayin'....

situgrrl · « **Reply #3 on:** December 21, 2005, 02:48:32 pm »

I had a sigma 70-200 f2.8 before it was stolen and would have bought another if I hadn't gone with an E1 - and I'd buy one for that if they'd make it! It's sharp, fast enough focusing (on an EOS 1 mk1 film) and well made.

C

Peter McLennan · « **Reply #4 on:** December 21, 2005, 05:51:09 pm »

I have a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR (stabilized) It gets me shots that would be otherwise unobtainable. 1/20th @2.8 and 200mm hand-held is quite typical. I'd expect the Canon to perform at least as well.

It's a big investment, but it only hurts once. It continues to pay back forever. The lens will still be around several bodies from now.

Remember, it's the DIFFERENCE in price you're talking about, not the absolute price.

Have fun downundah!

Peter

sxty8goats · « **Reply #5 on:** December 24, 2005, 03:16:44 pm »

Quote

Remember, it's the DIFFERENCE in price you're talking about, not the absolute price.

Have fun downundah!

Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54080\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying the money I would save by going wth the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is not worth the quality difference between the canon 70-200mm f/2.8? I am leaning towards the sigma, or the 135 prime. A couple nice primes may not be as convienient as a zoom but the f/stops make that up. I hate the idea of buying stuff twice and, like most people, $500 to $1000 purchases don't come easily. Thanks to everyone for their advice so far.

Yakim Peled · « **Reply #6 on:** December 25, 2005, 05:03:03 am »

Here are the reasons for me to choose the 70-300 IS. While build quality is terrible, optical performance and IS mean I'd be keeping it until I can afford the 70-200/2.8 IS. YMMV but I won't buy again another telephoto without IS. For reference, I previously had the 200/2.8 and 300/4 IS.

All lenses were reviewed in PZ.

sxty8goats · « **Reply #7 on:** December 30, 2005, 09:53:55 pm »

Budgit and IS lead me to finaly purchasing a 70-300mm IS. I also picked up a sigma 30mm f/1.4. The canon 50 f/1.4 is my favorite lens right now but it is a little long for bar/clubs when shooting bands. The price and reviews on the sigma lens won me over. Thanks for everyone's response. I'll pop back in later on with impressions.

rih · « **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2005, 06:27:39 am »

There are many ways to solve this problem. for me the 70-200 Canon F4 has worked well. it is light and easy to carry on a trip. The one F stop difference has become less significant with a digital camera as I just vary the ISO at will from frame to frame. With my Canon 10D it is hard to tell the difference re noise from ISO 100-400. Somday I hope to get the Canon 70-200 F12.8 IS but I would likely hang on to the F4 for travelling. It, the 17-40 and a 1.4x TC would probably handle most anything that would come up on your trip.

mahleu · « **Reply #9 on:** July 12, 2007, 12:05:01 pm »

The canon 70-200 2.8 is a beautiful lens. I've just finished shooting a festival which consisted largely of dark theatrical productions. The lens performed flawlessly and with a bit of practice can be handheld down to 1/30 or slower.

Personally i recommend looking around for a second hand example of this rather than the f4.

kaelaria · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2007, 02:09:18 pm »

You are seriously considering the *color* of the lens body as deciding factor in what to buy? LOL Talk about irrelavent!

If I could afford the 2.8 I would have it (and will sometime later). For now I enjoy my 4 every chance I get and it's never let me down!

Author Topic: Looking for a longer Lens.. (Read 4244 times)