Choosing a new DRebel lens

[jrm]

I have been reading through the topics, and see several posts about lenses for use with a Digital Rebel. Rather than help me decide, I feel more confused now than when I started.

Right now, I have a Digital Rebel with the "stock" 18-55 EFS lens. I would like to add a tele/zoom.

Of particular note, I will be taking an Alaska cruise in July. Whale watching, black bear watching... presumably done from a distance. :D I plan on filling up my 1GB microdrive several times over.

Which lens? Is the Canon 75-300IS the way to go? Or should I look at a 100-400 lens? Is there much of a size/wieght difference between the two?

Many posts seem to indicate that anything in the "consumer" price range gets pretty bad after 200mm. At the same time, I can't see spending >$1,000 on a lens. (I would love to get a 2.8, but I guess my price requirement kills that idea.)

Would really appreciate any advice or suggestions that can be offered.

[morenoar]

PLEASE, PLEASE take LOTS and LOTS of PICTURES. That is a CRUISE that I want to do, but wife is not to thrilled about going to cold side, she wants the Bahamas. I want to see PICTURES, plenty of them. Sorry I can't help you with the lens, since I am still looking for one. But I do want to see Pictures and wish you a GREAT TIME in ALASKA. By the way, what Company are you going on the cruise with?

[Wickedfn4u]

JRM: I bought my 300D back in Nov and love it. The two lenses I bought with the stock one were the 28-135 is and the 75-300 is. I loved the 28-135 but quickly learned that I really desired something faster in the lingo of f/stop.

When my 75-300 arrived I did not even use it, I had it pre-sold and bought a Sigma 70-200 2.8 (560.00) with two converters the 1.4 (125.00) and the 2x(125.00). If light is not a problem (indoors or grey days) I can smack on the 1.4 and have a f/4 98-280 and if I want put on the 2x and get a 140-400 f/5.6.

I also picked up a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 ($306.00) and then sold the 28-135. As far as the pictures go they are great and I love my set up. I think the only thing I am going to pick up is a sigma 15-30mm or the 17-35mm.

Here is a helpful site that I have been using to find out lens quality.

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstd

Then I use Ebay to get an idea on price. Sometimes a lens looks good on paper and then I see the cost and have to regroup.

TC

[jrm]

morenoar,

Am sailing on Royal Caribbean. After _years_ of going on "beach" vacations (and two caribbean cruises) I finally convinced the wife to do something different. The thought of laying on a beach - again - drives me nuts. :)

Since I went digital, I always take lots of pics on vacation. Last year was over 1,000 shots in a week. My notebook computer is always with me, so I just constantly download off the card. Last two years, batteries were the limiting factor (Canon s40). Considering the great battery life on the DRebel, I may have to get another 1GB card to keep up (especially since I plan to shoot mostly RAW).


Wickedfn4u,

By your calculations, the Sigma 70-200 with a 2x converter would cost $685 (560+125). This would yield a 140-400 f/5.6. Yet the Canon 75-300IS f/4-5.6 runs about $400 (B&H Photo w/US warranty. Looks like your Sigma lens alone is >$700 here). At almost $300 less (based on your number for the Sigma with 2x converter) you only lose the f-stop vs the Sigma in 70-200 mode. However, the Canon gives you the IS (albeit, only to 300mm, not 400mm). (And I have always been leary of the converter lenses - is this a quality concern? Will is mess with the DRebel AF or other settings?)

Sigma/Tamron/Canon - is there a quality difference at this price level? The site you quoted gives your Sigma a much higher rating than the Canon 75-300. Yet many posts on this forum say how great the Canon is.

The more I find out, the more confused I get.

[Ryan@40]

I have the 70-200 F4L lens and I love it, see some samples in the Samples and Critiques forums.....

For the reach, and the money, many use the "Bigma", or the Sigma 50-500 Telephoto lens. Gets some great reviews in other forums, Fred Miranda...., cost approx. $800 and will have the reach you need.

Remember also if you are going to shoot from a boat/ship the roll of the boat will require fast shutter speeds, so IS may be an option....

I second the request for pictures as this is a trip I want to go on as well..

Mark

[Jim Larson]

The 100-400/L-IS is "large".

I would suggest the 70-200/4L with 1.4x TC. Total cost ($575+$250).

I have found enlargements from the 70-200 superior to un-enlarged output from the 300.

[AlanL]

I came to this website after I purchased the 300D. wish i had come first would now have a 10d, just waiting for the 1d replacement soon. I have 15 years experience with nikon film and canon FD Stuff. I would only now say buy the 70-200 f4 for 2.8 and the 4 is much smaller. you will tell a quick difference in those lenses then 70-300. very much worth the price difference.

[scottbergerphoto]

Since this may be the trip of a lifetime, have you considered renting some L glass for the trip:
1. 16-35L f/2.8(great for seascapes/landscapes)
2. 24-70L f/2.8
3. 70-200 IS L f/2.8
4. 100-400 IS L
5. Sigma 500 f/4.5 EX APO HSM(look those whales in the eye!)
I'm not suggesting you rent them all. Why not think about the kind of pictures you want to keep for a lifetime and rent the appropriate lens.
Enjoy the trip!
Scott

[Longwatcher]

Okay I have both the 75-300 IS and the 100-400.

The 100-400 is better then the 75-300 IS.

However, it is also much, much heavier. I can hold the 75-300 almost all day long, the 100-400 limits my hand holding to about an hour or two at most.

For the price the 75-300 IS is fairly good and I have gotten some of my sharpest pictures from this lens. However, I rarely use it anymore as I prefer my 70-200/2.8L IS and 100-400L IS to this lens.

One other point is Canon extenders will work with the 100-400 (although only in manual focus mode). They won't with the 75-300.

There are apparently some fine Sigma lenses as well, but I don't have those so can't speak to them.

So my recommendation is:
- If tight on money, go with 75-300 IS it will work for you quite fine.
- If have plenty of money definately get the 100-400.
- Even better in my opinion would be the 70-200/2.8L IS and a both the 1.4x and 2x extenders, although this will cost even more. It is better quality then 100-400, a touch heavier though, better aperture, and the IS is fanatastic.

Just my experience and opinion,

[morenoar]

jrm

I know what you mean about going to Beach areas year after Year. I want to do something different. Like Alaska, or Europe or Med. I would say Asia, but I am headed to Japan on Tuesday, cya wife :P . We have done Mexico 3 times already and possible 4th this year. I want to do Alaska before I die, or the kids kill me :oops:

For Christmas, my wife got me an I-Pad to download my pictures, works GREAT. I will be taking it to Japan to download all my PICS. On the ships, you can recharge your Batteries every night.

Just have a GREAT TIME

[Wickedfn4u]

jrm: The reason I suggested the 70-200 sigma is the shutter speed. I found that I had much more flexibility shooting in different light conditions. I have the option of going down to a 2.8, albeit only up to 200mm but I missed so many action shots because I had to slow the shutter down. Then on a nice day I could go up to the 1.4 or 2x. I found the quality very good and loved my flexibility. That is all I was saying about the lenses I picked.

As for that site I recommended, I use it as a guide. I figure that is more hard core comparisons vs. opinion or maybe field results.

[jrm]

Wow, I really appreciate all the input on this. You are all very helpful.

The site Wickedfn4u mentioned is great. Just "composite" ratings of lenses, all on a chart. Don't have to week through the "long" review to get to the meat. Excellent starting place.


Renting is something I didn't consider, although it is something I will look into. This might be an option. Only thing is I am looking for a permanent second lens for the DRebel anyway. Would hate to get spoiled by some L-glass.

Regarding the L lenses... are they really that much better? Using B&H prices, the 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 is only $399. The 100-400 f/4-5.6L is $1339 - more than triple the price (I know, you also get the extra 100mm). I have been taking pictures with 35mm since the 1970s and digital for the past few years. I consider myself a "serious amateur"... meaning I want the best shots possible, but don't have any paying clients to support my equipment habit. :) Is the L series really that much better?

That said, I do like the idea of a faster lens. At $739, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is looking good. But then, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L is only $1089. Is the L $350 better than the Sigma? (Why does everyone call it "Bigma"?)

My choices are pretty much looking like this...

1. Cheap route
Canon 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS at $399
This will be my "keeper" and then I might consider renting a longer lens just for the vacation. (100-400 L or maybe that Sigma 500mm)

2. Medium
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x converter ($739+converter)
I really like the idea of a faster lens. Especially since my only other lens now is the EF-S that came with the body. It would be great to have at least _one_ faster lens. Plus, without the converter, this might work for an "everyday" lens - I like the focal length range, and it presumably not as large/bulky as the 75-300 or the 100-400 below.


3. Super Size me
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L with 2x converter (about $1400?) or
Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS ($1339)
The 70-200 has the speed and other advantages (as with the Sigma) up to 200mm. It ends up with about equal speed to the 100-400 once the converter is used. The 100-400 has the IS advantage, which would probably come in handy, especially at longer lengths.

My understanding from the Canon website is that with f/2.8 or faster lenses, autofocus (and IS) still works when using the Canon 2x converter. Of course, at over $1500 for the lens alone, I just can't consider the 70-200 Canon with the IS... but it is nice to have autofocus. Would the Sigma with 2x converter still offer autofocus on the DRebel?

Considering my original price range was option #1, moving up is a big mental shift. But once I started considering the Sigma with converter, I see the Canon L is "just a few hundred more."

Decisions, decisions.

A few people have mentioned size/weight. Between the Sigma and Canon Ls mentioned above, are there any big differences?

thanks again.

[Wickedfn4u]

There is nothing wrong with saving money, but one thing to remember you will sell or upgrade the body, what you really are investing in is the glass.

I believe the 70-200 is bigger than the 75-300, but you are also dealing with a 2.8 through the range so you will need more light in. It is a good size lens and can be shot free hand all day.

I have not had any focus problems with the 1.4 or 2x on my lens. From what I read, up to 5.6 is ok for that. So either the canon or sig would work.

Now some will say gas is gas or glass is glass. Gas companies do put different additives in for different things to get you to buy theirs, but the combustible part is all the same. With glass I guess you have to be the judge. You can look at the chart I linked you and see the numbers but IMO nobody can tell the difference between 4.07 and 4.02, both "very good". That is why I went with the sigma, I don't need it to be "white with the cute little red stripe" just to show how much I spent. If it makes me happy, then it is what I want. Now quality or build may come into play, but that is what we are all here for. If someone puts out a lemon it would not make it past this board.

[scottbergerphoto]

After reading all the posts, including my own, I felt a couple of additional points might be worth mentioning:
1. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a great lens with or without IS. When you add the 2X extender, the viewfinder gets much darker due to 1/4 the amount of light getting through and the images get a little softer. If you want a long lens to catch a whale smiling and you don't want to spend 3,500 - 8,000 for a 500 mm lens, that's where you might consider renting a Canon 500 f/4 or Sigma EX 500 f/4.5. If you do go this route, remember to rent a sturdy tripod and Gimbal Type head like the Wimberly.
2. Most decent lenses are sharp at the center of the lens and with the aperture stoped down. The advantage of L glass is that they are supposed to be sharp at all parts of the lens and at all their apertures. There will be much said on both sides as to how much of that is true and how much difference that makes in the final print. 10 Years ago when I started with Nikon film cameras and lenses, I bought what I could afford and was happy with it. Now I shoot Canon digital and use L glass because I can afford it now. I don't know that my pictures are any better because I use L glass or because digital has allowed me to shoot so many more pictures. What I do notice, is that faster lenses (smaller f stops) are much more fun to use, because you have a bright clear viewfinder, and it's easier to freeze action.
I hope you enjoy your trip.
Scott :D