Any comments/thoughts on these lenses?

[KHogan]

Hi,

I'm in the market for a lens with a longer reach. While I've tried Canon's 70-200L f/2.8 and was impressed with the results, this won't be the lens I'll be getting in the near future. There are several criteria that are important to me at the moment including weight (less is better), size (less is better), price (affordable as this will not be my primary lens), and reach (more is better). :) Ideally, the faster the lens the better but given the criteria I've set, I've resigned myself to give up on speed for the sake of the other criteria which at the moment are more important for me.

With this lens I will be shooting outdoors during the day. So no night shooting and no indoor. I don't need a lens for action/sports. I will use it mostly for events, and street type shooting. As a result, I would like to ideally be able to shoot without a tripod as situations will not be conducive to setting up a tripod. I need to get the shots fast and with minimum distraction.

All that said, I've been doing some research and have come up with the following lenses which are all in a similar price range and fit all the criteria mentioned above. My question is now, has anyone any experience with any of these lenses and if so, how have you found the resulting optical quality using these lenses? I'm interested in sharpness, contrast, and AF speed when used with the D30. Also, how do these lenses compare when shot at wide-open apertures and also at their longest focal lengths? Anything else you could contribute, including sample images would be most helpful. I have also been looking at 300mm and 400mm primes although I do like the idea of the flexibility of a zoom lens.

Here are the lenses in the running:

Canon 100-300 USM F/4.5-5.6
Sigma 70-300 F/4-5.6 APO Macro Super

Or for more money and slightly bigger than I'd like:

Sigma 135-400 F/4.5-5.6 APO Aspherical
Sigma 400mm F/5.6 APO

Thanks for your help.
Kharim

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Kharim,

I used to own the Canon 75-300 IS, which I think is the same as the one you're considering. I cannot compare to any of the others you list, but "used to own" should give you a clue. :)

Yes, it's cheap. Yes, it's quite light. But I found picture quality, especially at 300mm not good. I would not recommend this lens, but I cannot offer any alternatives in the price bracket. I went the whole hog and part-exchanged for the 100-400L. :eyes

Have you checked out www.photographyreview.com? The users opinions can be quite helpful.

Regards,

[KHogan]

Hi Roger,

Thanks so much for your comments. I'd originally thought the 75-300 IS would be the lens for me until I rented a non-USM version of this lens for a couple of weekends. It fell off my shortlist immediately after that. While the IS part of it appeals to me, the lens itself wasn't worth keeping it on my shortlist. So I'm in total agreement with you there. :) The one I'm now looking at, the 100-300 USM seems to be a very different lens and people over at photographyreview.com are giving it good praise (better than the 75-300 versions) which has peaked my interest. But, I haven't found an examples of images shot with this lens (not that that always tells much but it's helpful).

About the 100-400L. Well, I'd LOVE to be able to splurge for something like that. And I'd seriously consider it if they made it in a woman's model. ;) That lens is sooooo heavy and hardly discreet that I just don't think I could get very good handheld shots with it much less cart it around all day long. Of course, if going with the cheaper zooms will yield unusable pictures compared to the 100-400L, then I'd have to reconsider my options. Mind you, if that were the case, maybe a -igma 70-200 f/2.8 EX with a 1.4X or 2X converter would do the trick??? Cheaper, potentially lighter, and more discreet since it's not white??? What think thee?

I would though prefer still to find a happy compromise in a smaller, lighter, cheaper format. Do you think this is possible or am I just dreaming?

Thanks!
Kharim

[reddawn]

Hi

off the top of my head, i have 3 alternatives for you to consider :)

1) EF 70-200 f4L
Every bit optically as good as the 70-200 f2.8L. Smaller, much lighter, much more mobile, and cheaper. Sharp wide open. You wouldn't go wrong. Slap a 1.4x converter if u need a longer range......

2) Sigma 70-200 f2.8
I tried this one out briefly in the shop and it's very good. I know of pple who use and love this lens as well. Optically very good too, most certainly better than any consumer Canon zoom lens! Sharp at f2.8, but maybe not as good as the Canon version. Still, this one focuses very fast, and has HSM. And it wouldn't break your bank. Black means it's not as attention grabbing......

3) Look for good second hand deals. I got my EF 70-200 f2.8L when the upgrade fever sets in for some pros after Canon announces the 70-200 f2.8L IS, and i got a very good lens for a pretty good deal! :)

[Grogan]

Hi, I bought a Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX with my D-30 B & H New York. I have no experience with Canon L lens yet??? But am very happy with the shots I have taken so far. Reading posts on forums like this one helped make my decision and for my needs right now it works well. I have been shooting inside Blues Clubs and the 2.8 with stage lighting works well for the atmospheric look.
Cheers Dave Grogan

[soumya63]

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is the biggest bang for the buck. It is every bit as good as Canon 70-200L and with D30, you need fast lens. Faster is better.

Also keep an eye on ebay. A month ago, I was offered an almost new Sigma for 500$ by a seller whose highest bidder backed off.

Also with Sigma, you can use 1.4X converter with negligible detoriation in quality. So on D30 the effective focal length will be 200x1.4x1.6=448 mm! Still you will have big enough aperture to do low available light photography.

[KHogan]

Hi,

The Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 is definitely an appealing lens. But it's much heavier than what I want at the moment. I really want to be able to carry this lens around all day long and not tire shooting hand-held for hours. Most likely it will be on my buy list at some point down the road (either that one or the Canon 70-200L F/4) but not for this current purchase.

Thanks!
Kharim

[soumya63]

Then you should only look into primes (like me). They are lighter, sharper and most of the time faster than any Zoom lens.

A good choice may be Canon 135mm f2 with 1.4x tele converter. 135mm f2 is the fastest prime in its class. Please note I am not talking about 135mm f2.8 soft focus.

[sasc]

HI Kharim, I have the 75-300IS. Ive not used any Ls but Im sure they are better as all the reports say. This lens will do much better in strong light and at 200 it is pretty good. I am hoping to eventually get a 300 f4 IS and telextenders for bird photography. For now with some judicious sharpening I can do pretty good with this.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1021587.jpg

Shutter speed: 1/500 sec
Aperture: 8.0
Exposure mode: Program
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Partial
Shooting mode: Continuous, frame: 0
ISO: 100
Lens: 75.0 to 300.0 mm
Focal length: 300.0 mm
AF mode: One-shot AF
Image size: 2160 x 1440
Image quality: Fine
White balance: Auto
Saturation: High
Sharpness: Normal
Contrast: Low
Custom Functions:
CFn 2: Shutter release: AE lock, AE button: AE + AF
CFn 12: SET button function when shooting: Change ISO speed

[KHogan]

Wow!! Thanks for the example Sarah! That is a superb shot!! The colours and contrast are fantastic and if that's what you get for softness at 300mm, I can certainly live with that. After all, for the cost of these lenses at a few hundred dollars, I can't expect miracles but you sure are getting some fantastic results. More than good enough for my purposes for the moment. I'm convinced now that my idea to go with one of these "consumer" models for the time being won't be a complete disaster. This is good!

Are you processing your images as linear tiffs? Is there much degradation in image quality if you shoot wide open at 300mm? Also, one other question...how do you find the AF speed with this lens?

Thanks again!
Kharim

[soumya63]

sasc wrote:
HI Kharim, I have the 75-300IS. Ive not used any Ls but Im sure they are better as all the reports say. This lens will do much better in strong light and at 200 it is pretty good. I am hoping to eventually get a 300 f4 IS and telextenders for bird photography. For now with some judicious sharpening I can do pretty good with this......


Fabulous Picture! You do deserve yourself a 300mm f4L. With a 2X or 1.4X converter, it is kind of impossible to get real sharp hand held shot until you reach for 2000 or 4000 shutter speed. So if you use you tripod for bird photography, you can save a fortune by picking up one of the pre-owned non IS 300mm f4L at around 600-750$.

[sasc]

Kharim, this particular photo was just the highest jpg. I wasnt sure how long hawkie would stick around so I wanted to blast off as many shots as possible. I dont know if its my camera or this lens but it tends to underexpose. I am just letting it do this and bringing out the colors in photoshop as it does eliminate blowing the highlights. This lens doesnt do nearly as well if the light isnt strong. I bought mine used at B&H. I really cant judge autofocus well as before I had a Pro90 which is constantly focusing and was weaned on manual everything slr. I dont think it is too bad but if you are trying to pick our some little bird in the woods its better to use the manual. I often use manual to find my subject and if its setting still, then flip to auto to let it get better focus than I may have. I do wish the D30 had a better viewfinder screen for manual focusing.

[KHogan]

I have to agree with you about the manual focussing. I haven't yet really figured out how to ensure accurate manual focussing. I really wish the D30 had a split screen viewfinder. I'm a bit lost without one. :) I'm going to try your trick to switch back to auto focus to let it fine tune the manual focussing.

About the underexposures of the camera, I'm starting to wonder if that may not be something related to the actual lenses. I started with a 28-105 lens which I actually really quite like. But I was finding that in low light, it was having a bit of trouble with correct exposure often just slightly underexposing. Then I added a 50mm lens and have been pleasantly surprised because this one seems to really get exposures right on. I still have more experimenting to do but I'm wondering if the speed of the lens has any bearing on the D30's ability to correctly read exposure. Just a theory at this point though.

Kharim

[sasc]

From what i pick up reading forums it must be the lenses. Everyone seems to have the 28-135 underexpose and here is something I cant explain. My B300 telextender will fit on the end of the 75-300. It will usually autofocus but the resulting photo isnt as good as lens without it. However when this 1.7 extender is on the lens it no longer underexposes. BTW, Canon says that it cant be used at all on the lens like this.

[KHogan]

Hmmm, well now that's interesting. I have a B-300 too and have been wondering if it would work with the D30. You've just answered my question. Thanks! I hadn't tried it because I need a stepdown ring.

About the shots coming out correctly exposed with the B-300 on the lens, there's another interesting thing. So I'm guessing, given that the lens element on the B-300 is so wide, that the B-300 is allowing more light to be captured and reach the film than the 75-300 alone can. The B-300 is wider than the 75-300 isn't it (the furthermost piece of glass I mean)? So your theory about the lenses causing the underexposure makes sense if my theory about the B-300 is correct.

Funny that the resulting picture would be worse with the B-300 on. That teleconverter is a fantastic piece of glass! But maybe, since it's 55mm on the short end, and the 75-300 is 58mm, there is something lost in that translation. Or, perhaps it's the gap between the two lenses (the B-300 and the 75-300) when they are attached that causes some physical degradation of the image. I don't know, just guessing here.

Kharim

[sasc]

Ive heard others say that the B300 lets more light in because of the size of it, so that may be it. Im not sure if the quality degradation might not be, not getting quite in focus or some shaking even. Here is a url with some sample photos from this lens and lens with B300 on. They were taken on very cloudy day as its all we had for weeks, so that would lower the quality too.

http://www.pbase.com/sasc/tests

[roine]

Hello

I have had the Sigma 135-400 F/4.5-5.6 APO Aspherical
and now have a 100-400 L IS.

The 100-400 is a step up, the IS make it possible to hand hold at 400mm and the contrast is better.

But the Sigma is great for the money.

But if You have the money, go for the 100-400. The IS is really useful.

This picture is taken with the 100-400 IS with a 2x converter on a D30 hand held.


www.roine.nu/crw_5020.jpg

[KHogan]

sasc wrote:
Ive heard others say that the B300 lets more light in because of the size of it, so that may be it. Im not sure if the quality degradation might not be, not getting quite in focus or some shaking even. Here is a url with some sample photos from this lens and lens with B300 on. They were taken on very cloudy day as its all we had for weeks, so that would lower the quality too.

http://www.pbase.com/sasc/tests

Really neat Sarah! You know, I don't find the shot with the B-300 to be so bad. In fact, I do find it quite good. But, I thought of something. I don't know if this would have any bearing but...the B300 is quite heavy and maybe might actually weigh on the lens to a point where it somewhat hinders the zoom, focus, and/or IS mechanisms. Do you think?

But another thing I noticed in your images was that the shot without IS seemed to have more contrast and be a bit sharper than the one with IS. Is this normal or is it just my eyes?

Thanks for posting the samples. :)
Kharim

[KHogan]

roine wrote:
Hello

I have had the Sigma 135-400 F/4.5-5.6 APO Aspherical
and now have a 100-400 L IS.

The 100-400 is a step up, the IS make it possible to hand hold at 400mm and the contrast is better.

But the Sigma is great for the money.

But if You have the money, go for the 100-400. The IS is really useful.

This picture is taken with the 100-400 IS with a 2x converter on a D30 hand held.


www.roine.nu/crw_5020.jpg



Wow, that's an impressive shot Roine! You know, I have to admit that even if I had the cash to spend on a 100-400 IS, I wouldn't. I was looking at that lens and it has several problems for me and my purposes. It is far too big to be practical and it is much much heavier than I care to cart around. Of course if I had a specialize use for the lens that meant that I had to accept its weight and size, I'd go for it, but I can't justify such a horse at this point despite its incredible abilities. :)

Now, onto that 135-400 which might just be more up my alley although still a bit on the big and heavy side...do you have a shot or two to share that were taken with that lens? That one is more in the price range I'd be willing to spend at this point.

Thanks!
Kharim

[roine]

Hello


The reason for carrying the heavy 100-400.

www.roine.nu/crw_4434.jpg


For the 135-400 Sigma

http://www.roine.nu/Farmagusta%20&%20Ayia%20Napa/index.htm

All telephotos is by 135-400 Sigma

4190-4192 is taken with 135-400 and a 2x kenko teleconverter.

4189 is a reference with 28-135 IS



www.roine.nu/img_4193.jpg

is an original jpg out of the camera.


File: IMG_4193.JPG
File size: 1,142KB
Date/Time: 2001.07.28 14:27:34
Shutter speed: 1/500 sec
Aperture: 8.0
Exposure mode: Program
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: Continuous frame: 1
ISO: 100
Lens: 135,0 to 400,0 mm
Focal length: 135,0 mm
AF mode: One-shot AF
Focus point: [Center]
Image size: 1440 x 2160
Image quality: Fine
White balance: Auto
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: Normal
Contrast: Normal
Custom Functions:
CFn 1: Long exposure noise reduction: ON
CFn 4: Tv/Av and exposure level: 1/3 stop
CFn 12: SET button function when shooting: Change ISO speed


---------------------------------------------

www.roine.nu/img_4188.jpg is simular but with the Canon 28-135.


File: IMG_4188.JPG
File size: 1,088KB
Date/Time: 2001.07.28 14:26:00
Shutter speed: 1/250 sec
Aperture: 8.0
Exposure mode: Program
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: Continuous frame: 1
ISO: 100
Lens: 28,0 to 135,0 mm
Focal length: 80,0 mm
Subject distance: 21 m
AF mode: One-shot AF
Focus point: [Center]
Image size: 2160 x 1440
Image quality: Fine
White balance: Auto
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: Normal
Contrast: Normal
Custom Functions:
CFn 1: Long exposure noise reduction: ON
CFn 4: Tv/Av and exposure level: 1/3 stop
CFn 12: SET button function when shooting: Change ISO speed

[sasc]

Kharim, the contrast was probably a change in the cloudyness that day or maybe in the sharpening. I really cant remember. I wouldnt want to depend on using the B300 on it and risking more not good shots unless it was something that I had no chance of getting otherwise. I think all those shots were with IS on and I just forgot to put the label on one of them.

I dont know if the weight of it could make a difference or not. I think that as long as I could use the 50 ISO the Pro90 and B300 does a better job. However its near impossible to get a focus on little birds with it.

The thing that doesnt sound appealing to me with the 100-400 besides the price is the push pull zoom

Decisions, decisions, money, money!

[KHogan]

Roine,

Thanks so much for all those great examples!! That 135-400 really does do some fine work considering the cost of the lens and all. I'd say that that would be a nice compromise if one doesn't want to spend the extra to get the 100-400IS. Hmmm... :)

Thanks again, that was very helpful!
Kharim

[KHogan]

Sarah,

Have you looked at the Sigma 100-300 F/4 EX? It's been getting very good reviews and with a 1.4X or 2X converter, it might be an interesting choice for you for your bird photography and it has internal focussing and zoom, no push-pull. That lens is $799 at B&H, definitely cheaper than the 100-400IS even if you add in a teleconverter. And since it's an F/4 throughout, you would still get F/5.6 with the 1.4X on it. You can probably get it cheaper at Delta International.

Also, do you know about the Nature Photographers website? They are at www.naturephotographers.net and they also have a forum. There are lots of nature and in particular bird photographers there. The forum is at:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi

There is a review at that site on the Sigma 100-300 lens which might interest you. It's at:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/je1001-2.html

Kharim

[roine]

Hello KHogan

Glad to help.

Look at:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/news/News.htm


I had to have my 135-300 upgraded by my store.

The problems with several old Sigma is that the lens is to slow to step down. So You get overexposed pictures due too that the cameras is to fast.

Sigma fixes that for free.

Roine

[KHogan]

Thanks Roine, that's good to know! :)

Kharim