Telephoto Zoom for D60

[SteveCliff]

(There is an old thread for this somewhere, but I can't find it - sorry!)

I have a Sigma 15-30mm EX DG which I am very happy with.
I have a Tamron 28-300mm which I have finally decided I am not happy with and am sending back.
I have a Canon 28-135 IS on order which I hope to be happy with :)

I now need a longer lens to complete my collection. Having used the Tamron over the weekend extensively, I think a 300mm zoom is about right for me - but which one ?

The Canon 100-400mm f4.5/5.6L looks gorgeous - but there is no way I can afford £1300 for it!
The most I can pay (for the next couple of years at least!) is about £500.

Canon's 100-300mm f4/5.6USM looked like the right kind of thing and is about £370, but it seems to have mixed reviews.

Any comments on the Canon ?

I am very happy with the Sigma 15-30 - do they do a *good* 100-300ish zoom ?

Thanks!

[mrchips]

I own the 100-400 L IS and it is a great lens. Before I purchased it I had the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. It was a great lens, sharp and the IS is a bonus. It can be purchased for ~ 500 US.

I have had the Sigma 170- 500 and now own the 17-35 EX. I am pretty much disapointed with the softness and over all quality of these lens and peresonally will stick with Canon for mt future purchases.

Denny

[xlpro2k]

The Sigma 50-500 is a very sharp lens that covers it all. Check out http://www.belgiumdigital.be/albums/canon_d60/vacation_week3/index.htm

[SteveCliff]

xlpro2k wrote:
The Sigma 50-500 is a very sharp lens that covers it all.

Thanks for the comment on the Sigma and the picture links - what lens did you use for your 28mm shots ?

[SteveCliff]

mrchips wrote:
I own the 100-400 L IS and it is a great lens.

I would love one .... but Mr Bank Manager says no :(
I have (hopefully) managed to save £90 on the cost of a new 28-135IS though, as our local camera shop can get a "mint" second-hand one that has been used for demo in another store :)

$500 for the 70-300mm would be ok, other than over here it's more like £500 :( I'm also worried about some negative reviews I've read on the net about it. Have you had any problems with the image softening off a lot as you use the longer focal lengths ?

[davenit]

I am going throught the same thing. This site has helped... http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

Lists most of the lenses you are looking at...

Dave

[SteveCliff]

davenit wrote:
I am going throught the same thing. This site has helped... http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html


I'm so glad that you're going through the same thing - because you'll be able to tell me what the hell the photodot graphs and statistics are! ;)
I've only recently started in this SLR game, and I havn't really a clue what most of the site is telling me, other than the higher the number, the better!

Do you know of any other sites that are more "beginner user friendly" ? :)

I'm looking forward to picking up my 28-135 tonight - I'm going to put the two lenses (Canon & Tamron) back to back just to see what kind of differences I get. Should be fun!

Cheers!

[davenit]

Here's one that's much easier to understand...

http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html

At photodo I just go by the overal rating. 5 is the max it can be. If I see that a Canon L 70-200 2.8 has a rating of 4,2 (out of 5,0) then I know that a Sigma 70-200 2.8 with a rating of 4,0 is probably a pretty darn good lens...

Now with that said. I have no idea what to buy. I am leaning towards the Sigma mentioned above or the Tokina 100-300 f4.

I don't know!!!!!!!!

Dave

[Chun]

You can get your Sigma 50-500mm from online shops for ~$700-800, which has already placed you into the high end of Canon "L" lenses.

If you can spend an additional $400, you will get a Canon 35-350mm f3.5-5.6 L USM - A truelly marvelous "L" lens that will give you all the pleasure of photography. The image quality is very sharp and you can grab those moment that no else can.

I had the 35-350mm L for 3 years. Had just sold it because I felt it could be replaced by my other lenses (I had 20-35/2.8L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 70-200/2.8L, and 300/4 LIS). The reality is that I regreted the moment I sold the lens. Soon, I found that although it duplicates my entire shooting range, its function is irreplaceable. Yes, it is not a 2.8 and not as sharp as any of the above lenses. But the image quality is very close. I bet you cannot find any differences on a 5x7 or 8x10 enlargement in a head-to-head comparison at 35-300mm range (350mm may be a little weak when compared to Canon's flagship 300/2.8 or 300/4). I found when I went travelling, I missed lots of shots when changing lenses (I even had two bodies, one D30, one A2).

The bottom line is, unless I stay at home and only take the lens I needed for shooting, I would rather bring the 35-350mm along with a 16/17-35 (or 15-30). Even if you have everything else, the 35-350mm L is still irreplaceable for travelling. I regret that I sold it and think I will get another one for myself again soon.

I have not used the Sigma 50-500mm therefore cannot comment on its quality and usefulness. If I were you, with the money invested in a Sigma 50-500, I would rather put in a little bit more and get a used 35-350mm L. It uses 72mm filter rather than the very uncommon 86mm for the Sigma. It is a USM with full-time manual function. And the most important - the image quality is unmatched by any super zoom out there.

That's my 2-cents. Hope it helps.

CHUN

[davenit]

Chun, your prices are a bit off. B&H has the 35-350 at $1500 bucks. That is around $610 more than the 50-500 ($889). Heck you could get the 50-500 and the 70-200 2.8 Sigma for the same price!!!

I am sure it is a great lens. I love L lenses, but $1500 for a non-professional to plunk down on a lens is way too steep IMO. Why not get 2 really great lenses instead of one astounding one?

I used B&H just for a comparison because I couldn't find used prices on either the sigma or canon. B&H's prices are high but they do shot the disparity in the cost.

Broadway Photo has the 35-350 at $1400 and the 50-500 at $630. Big price difference between the two for sure...

[SteveCliff]

davenit wrote:
Here's one that's much easier to understand...

http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html


Aha! A much easier to understand site :)
The Tokina *does* look interesting, doesn't it. Time for a further dig I think ......

I'll let you know if you find anything interesting .... any chance you can do the same ?

[davenit]

Steve you got a deal. I am sort of leaning at the moment to the Sigma 70-200. The D-30 1.6 takes taht to a 112-320. Throw a 1.4 converter on it and it becomes a,,, um a... carry the 7....square root of the hypotenuse.... 157-448 at F4!!!

But the 100-300 becomes a 224-672 at f5.6. That is with a 1.4. Problem here is that I will probably lose the AF at 5.6. With the Sigma AF would be intact.

I have found a Tokina 100-300 used for 500 so far. I don't know if it is the new version and not the old...

If I come up with anything good I will let you know.

[Rudi]

Dave,

At f/5.6, you will still have autofocus. :)

Another option that you should consider is the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L. A marvelous lens, and with the 1.4x Extender takes you to 320mm at f/5.6. Unless you need the f/2.8, this is the lens to get! Half the price, half the size, half the weight! And you get the "L" quality, feel, and sturdy build! The image quality is as good, if not better than, the f/2.8 version. I reckon it's the best-kept secret in the Canon L lens line-up!

Check out www.photographyreview.com to see the reviews on this lens. It's the highest-scoring zoom of everything listed on the site! (OK, they have a few 5 out of 5 scores, but these are usually lenses with only a few reviews, where this lens has been reviewed several times, so it's a realistic rating).

[davenit]

Rudi, thanks for the autofocus knowledge. Is it anything above 5.6 that autofocus is lost?

The f4 L is a really nice lens and at around 550 a real bargain!!!

I know have it down to...

Sig 70-200 f2.8 (rated real high by everyone)
Tokina 100-300 f4 (rated real high by everyone)
Canon 70-200 f4 L - (rated real high by everyone including the competition...lol)

Should take me around 6 months to choose...bwahahaha...

There is always the Tokina 300 f2.8 prime...hmmmmm...

[davenit]

Rudi, should also be mentioned that the f4 L does NOT have a tripod mount. If you want one it is $140 bucks. That is alot of money for a mount....

[Rudi]

Dave,

yes, no tripod mount, but the lens is light enough not to need one. (I know, I would prefer one to come with the lens, too, but it really isn't as much of a problem as you'd think. You can always buy the 300 f/4 L and use the collar from that - they're the same size! :D).

Regarding autofocus, any aperture smaller than f/5.6 and you lose autofocus, unless shooting with the EOS 1V or the EOS 3 with only the centre focusing spot selected, then you can go to f/8.

There is also a trick where you can tape over three contact points on the camera, so the lens doesn't report that a smaller aperture than f/5.6 is being used. Since the camera doesn't know, it will still try (and usually succeed) to autofocus.

[davenit]

Rudi, Delta has the Sig 70-200 2.8 for $581 bucks. This lens and the f4 L were rated real close with the L winning out by a bit. Probably a little sharper...

Gonna be a tough choice... I would really like something in the xxx-300 range for small critter shooting...

Too many choices... oh yeah... A 300 f4 L... that was a good one... ahahahaha...

[Rudi]

Dave,

at that price, the thing that would decide it for *me* would be ergonomics. I'm almost positive that the Canon lens would be easier to use (FTM focusing for one thing, and much lighter). If you *need* (or want :)) the f/2.8, then you either go with the Sigma, or look for a second-hand Canon (I'd look for the Canon, or save up a little longer).

Look - I have a Sigma 135-400 APO lens. It's great! Sharp, great zoom range, a little heavy and slower focusing, but the optics are great! Guess what? It's for sale! I just don't use it... I will reach for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L or the 300 f/4 L before the Sigma, even if I have to use the 1.4x Extender to get the focal length out of it that I need. It's sad! :) ... The Sigma is only four months old, but I bought a two-year-old second-hand Canon 300 f/4 L (that did *a lot* of work, but was well taken care of) because I did not like using the Sigma. Sometimes it's not just the optics! (Of course, the Canon lenses are brilliant optically as well. If the Sigma was brilliant optically, and the Canon lenses weren't then I might still be using it, but all else being equal, the choice *for me* was clear...).

[SteveCliff]

I've being trying to find a supplier in the UK for the Tokina 100-300mm ? (Jessops do the Sigma 50-500mm - at £770 ... gulp!).

I can find a number of retailers who deal with other Tokina lenses, but not this one. Anybody know of someone ?

Should I be worried that no one seems to be selling this lens ? Is it "old stock" and ready to be replaced with something better and cheaper ? (Ok, wishfull thinking now!)

[davenit]

Steve and Rudi. I have decided to go with the Sig. 70-200 2.8. The reviews have been raves. On photodo the Canon 2.8 L received a rating of 4.1 (out of 5) and the Sig got a 3.9. Other L lenses ranged from 3.9 up to 4.5. So I am confident that the Sig will give me the sharpness and contrast I am looking for...

Now, to find the deal of the century because it is a lot more than I want to spend...hahahahahaha..

[Rudi]

davenit wrote:
Steve and Rudi. I have decided to go with the Sig. 70-200 2.8. The reviews have been raves.

Yep. It has good reputation around the Internet. Not many bad reviews. :)

Please let us all know how you get on with it. I'd be particularly interested in what you think of the autofocus performance and ergonomics of the lens... and don't forget to post some photos taken with the Sigma, so we can all see how the optics are.

And let us know what sort of deal you got! :D