70-210 vs 100-300: help!

[mdude85]

I am trying to decide between two RANGES of distance, not trying to decide between two lenses. Assuming all things equal, which would you rather have? I already have a 50 mm lens. If I used a zoom lens like the two in my subject header, I'd probably use it almost exclusively for big zooming, so I wouldn't need the 50 mm in between 50 and 100, or would I? In other words, what do you think is more beneficial? Having the extra 30 mm closer to the 50 mm end, or having the extra 90 mm on the long end.

[Cadwell]

Speaking personally I would always go for more telephoto but then I don't know what you shoot.

[Ballen Photo]

I am trying to decide between two RANGES of distance, not trying to decide between two lenses. Assuming all things equal, which would you rather have? I already have a 50 mm lens. If I used a zoom lens like the two in my subject header, I'd probably use it almost exclusively for big zooming, so I wouldn't need the 50 mm in between 50 and 100, or would I? In other words, what do you think is more beneficial? Having the extra 30 mm closer to the 50 mm end, or having the extra 90 mm on the long end.

Personally, I'd go for the 100-300 lens. The extra reach will never hurt you. Besides, I believe that the 70-210 is a much older lens, I dont think Canon has made one of those in quite a few years, so there is a possibility of it having incompatibillity issues with your DSLR. :shock:
Where did you find the 70-210 for sale?
-Bruce

[mdude85]

I originally purchased a Sigma 70-210 with, unknown to the seller, a defective AF. Right now I am looking at Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron telephoto zooms.

As for what I shoot, I shoot all sorts of things ... I like shooting wide angle (already got one wide angle lens and will probably buy another one), portraits (what the 50 mm is for), and would like to start getting into some "sports" type shooting. That's why I think I won't miss the 50 mm on the short end.

[DocFrankenstein]

At the zoo, I'd like more reach. Much more. I think I always shoot at 200 and never lower than 130mm

[ejwebb]

70-210 is a much older lens, I dont think Canon has made one of those in quite a few years, so there is a possibility of it having incompatibillity issues with your DSLR

I have one I purchased a few years ago used - no problems with DRebel. It is the 3.5-4.5 Canon version and is a very good lens - at least as good quality-wise as my 28-105. While I have never used an L and my 50mm is sharper than any of my zooms, I like the 70-210 a lot. Has a problem with zoom creep but you can't have everything...at least not cheaply!

From what I have read it is a step up in quality from most of the 100-300 consumer zooms.

Not really relevant to this post about the Sigma, but throwing it out there in case someone is looking at a Canon version.

[ejwebb]

70-210 is a much older lens, I dont think Canon has made one of those in quite a few years, so there is a possibility of it having incompatibillity issues with your DSLR

I have one I purchased a few years ago used - no problems with DRebel. It is the 3.5-4.5 Canon version and is a very good lens - at least as good quality-wise as my 28-105. While I have never used an L and my 50mm is sharper than any of my zooms, I like the 70-210 a lot. Has a problem with zoom creep but you can't have everything...at least not cheaply!

From what I have read it is a step up in quality from most of the 100-300 consumer zooms.

Not really relevant to this post about the Sigma, but throwing it out there in case someone is looking at a Canon version.

[aam1234]

I dont think Canon has made one of those in quite a few years, so there is a possibility of it having incompatibillity issues with your DSLR

I too have that lens, and it's great. Recently I upgraded to 70-200 L, and frankly I didn't notice much of a difference.

[Ballen Photo]

I have one I purchased a few years ago used - no problems with DRebel. It is the 3.5-4.5 Canon version and is a very good lens - at least as good quality-wise as my 28-105. While I have never used an L and my 50mm is sharper than any of my zooms, I like the 70-210 a lot. Has a problem with zoom creep but you can't have everything...at least not cheaply!

From what I have read it is a step up in quality from most of the 100-300 consumer zooms.


It's good to hear there are no problems when mating this lens to your DSLR. :D
-Bruce

[mdude85]

while we are on the topic of incompatibility, I have a question. There is a Sigma 75-300 on KEH that says "FILM ONLY" in the description. Does this mean it does not work with DSLRS? I sent Sigma an email about the current lens I have and they said it must be upgraded.

Also, do you think minimum of f6.7 is too slow at 300mm?

[ron chappel]

That sigma 75-300 is an old model for sure,i'm a little surprised they can upgrade that one.
I THINK sigma lens rechipping is free in usa but best check first.
I got abit of a shock recently when i found out that sigma OZ charges for the service!

[ron chappel]

The canon 70-210/3.5-4.5 and 100-300 are 'brother' versions.I've used both and found them identical in image quality, looks, features , build,etc

The 100-300 is still made but the 70-210 has been replaced by the 'cheap' 80-200 II which is a very underated lens (optically i mean-the perceived build of the older 70-210 was much stronger/nicer)

***There is NO chance of the older lens being incompatable with a digital camera-canon don't work like that! :? ***

I can happily recommend either :) but i suggest you go for the extra length.
I'm pretty sure you won't miss the inbetween focal lengths

[Vita Rara]

Besides, I believe that the 70-210 is a much older lens, I dont think Canon has made one of those in quite a few years, so there is a possibility of it having incompatibillity issues with your DSLR.

I have an EF 70-210 f/4 from 1988 that I use on my dRebel. No compatibility issues at all. This is the push pull zoom version. I think it's the original non-L 70-210.

It's a very nice lens. I haven't had the opportunity to compare it to an L though. Not sure I want to. Might cost me too much. :shock:

Mark