 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006advice on tele zoom lens for my Canon
Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But now i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have IS, but.... Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are supposley much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could live without it, or not? So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses, i'd be gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about top price i could afford right now... Second thing is - in future i will need an additional flash, so again here are two models- -Canon 430Ex or Sigma EF-500 DG - it seems there are two models - ST and SUP - whatever difference is--- so, which one to choose, since price is similar, while sigma is somewhat stronger? THX Hi, >>Since I have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens.<< I did just the reverse with my Canon 350XT. Came with the kit lens (18-55mm) and I later purchased Sigma (70-300mm, 4-5.6). I just ordered the 17-85mm IS lens and will be interested in how it compares with the kit lens. Good luick with your purchase of a long lens. Best, Conrad Camp Sherman, Oregon > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Conrad > Camp Sherman, Oregon How is that sigma works? I mean, are you shooting from hand or tripod? I'm still leaning towards Canon, since i think that IS is a strong factor. So far i don't have much experiences with new equipment, but as far as i can tell this 17-85IS works excellent. Pretty wide angle, and on the other hand, pretty good zoom, so great for general shooting, as you don't need to constantly change lenses. A few poeple i've spoke with say that this lens is still better overall than 18-55. I held it in hand (18-55 i mean) and when you hold it, you instantly get that "bad" feeling, since it's so damn light...all plastic... OK, those two i mentioned are great, sure - long range, temptating. But, from i've read so far, they are more or less tripod lenses. And i know i'll use more from hand than on a tripod, so.....and i think that 300 is quite enough for a start, right, (especially when this is actually 480 because of crop factor). Hi, >>How is that sigma works (70-300mm, 4-5.6)? I mean, are you shooting from hand or tripod?<< I use the Sigma lens far less than my kit lens - largely because I'm lazy to change lenses and the 18-55mm lens works for me in most cases. That's probably one of the best reasons I've ordered the Canon 17-85mm IS lens. It will probably work for most of my pictures and hopefully do better than my kit lens. We'll see. When using the Sigma lens - I use the short end for portraits and candid people shots (hand held). When using the long end - I try to use a tripod (but again, I'm lazy). I also have a 2X teleconverter and when used with the long end of the Sigma - can get me out to 960mm (with crop factor). That has to be with tripod. Another fun feature on the Sigma is close up pictures using the 200mm to 300mm lens range (Sigma calls this macro). Best, Conrad Camp Sherman, Oregon > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > IS lens. It will probably work for most of my pictures and hopefully do > better than my kit lens. We'll see. i guess you can't miss with this lens. OK, 24-105 would be even better, but almost twice the price. As far as i can tell in a month of use of this lens, i can only say good. Wide enough for most cases, but still pretty good tele. IS is only a good thing. Pics have to be somewhat worked out in PS, sure - mainly some sharpening, but this is just pain of non L lenses, i guess. When we'll have more money, things will change (i hope) > Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. Why a zoom? They are always more of a compromise, usually heavier, less contrasty, harder to focus with due to smaller wide aperture, and they slow down your ability to learn better composition. Just food for thought.  SignatureBart >> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. > > Why a zoom? They are always more of a compromise, usually heavier, less > contrasty, harder to focus with due to smaller wide aperture, and they > slow down your ability to learn better composition. Just food for thought. hm...good point, sure. I'd say zoom for first use, i guess. Later on i'll definitely buy some fixed lenses (like, 50 f1.8). getting it all is just too expensive. > >> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > definitely buy some fixed lenses (like, 50 f1.8). getting it all is just > too expensive. 50/1.8 is dirt cheap. If you have budget and are considering lenses more expensive than 70-300/4-5.6 IS, just get a 50/1.8 first, and then maybe a 70-300/4-5.6 IS. I use 50/1.8 much more often than all the other lenses combined. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr >> >> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr that one is cheap and it's on my list soon...i just ment getting all of them (which one would need) is expensive... > Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i > wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > since price is similar, while sigma is somewhat stronger? > THX My advice, if you'll be using either of these lenses at the long end of the zoom range (800 mm and 640 mm effective) is get a GOOD tripod. I have a 70-300 IS USM, and with the IS off, it is tough for me to get a good handheld shot at anything over 200mm (320 mm effective). Shoot a few with your existing lens at 85 mm, a low shutter speed and IS turned off to get a feel for it. As for the flash, be sure the Sigma has all the functions the Canon does. Good luck, Holley >> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i >> wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Holley i looked this new Canon a bit- ---although is expensive, i think it might be excellent stuff---EF 70-200 L F4 IS USM they say it will be on sale November.... >> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i >> wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Holley Good point. I'll do that withmy current lens... I also looked to new EF 70-200 L F4 IS USM from Canon...it might be a very good stuff, but sure, way more expensive ? > I also looked to new EF 70-200 L F4 IS USM from Canon...it might be a very > good stuff, but sure, way more expensive ? I'd consider 70-300/4-5.6 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS, and skip the middle f/4 one. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr >> I also looked to new EF 70-200 L F4 IS USM from Canon...it might be a >> very [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr yeees, this one is gold, i know... > Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i > wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But now [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could > live without it, or not? If I do not want IS, then I would use 200/2.8, sometimes with 1.4x and 2x. > Second thing is - in future i will need an additional flash, so again here > are two models- -Canon 430Ex or Sigma EF-500 DG - it seems there are two > models - ST and SUP - whatever difference is--- so, which one to choose, > since price is similar, while sigma is somewhat stronger? If you can get Sigma EF 500 DG ST for about $100, it is a good value. If you want better features, then you can choose from Sigma EF 500 DG Super, Metz 54 AF, and Canon 550EX. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.