Need some advice

[swatcop169]

I'm hopefully fixing to sell my AR-15. If so I'm looking at a extra $1K. I want to get a couple lens and maybe a Lowepro backpak.

Here's what I'm looking for:
1. 50mm, 1.4 or 1.8
2. xxxmm tele-zoom lens

As for the Lowepro backpak. Which one is everyone using?

[GPR1]

What do you like to shoot (with the camera that is)? What zoom range do you want?

Greg

[swatcop169]

What do you like to shoot (with the camera that is)? What zoom range do you want?

Greg

I shoot about anything.

Well after looking around on dell.com website they are offering 15% off on canon products till 11/15. Which means I can get:

EF 75-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
EF 50mm f/1.8 II

For $563 shipped 2nd day air.

B&H has the Lowepro Pro Trekker AW II for $319

which leaves me about $117 to get a filter for the lens?

[wolf]

I'm curious, why would you not get the 2 lens from B&H also at $490 shipped.

[swatcop169]

I'm curious, why would you not get the 2 lens from B&H also at $490 shipped.

Cause I didn't look for lens on there :D

Off to B&H I go

[swatcop169]

Well after shopping around on B&H for abit, this is what I have came up with.

Lowepro Pro Trekker AW II Camera Backpack
Canon ET-64 II Lens Hood
General Brand Lens Cleaning Kit
Canon 52mm Circular Polarizer Glass Filter
Canon ES-62 Lens Hood with HD Adapter 62Lens Hood
Canon 58mm Circular Polarizer Glass Filter
Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS USM Autofocus Lens
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens

All for a grand total of: $1000.75 shipped 3-day UPS.

[wolf]

A lot better deal than Dell. :D

I buy 90% of my stuff from B&H, it is less expensive than buying it locally here in Canada.

[swatcop169]

I'm finding out on other forums that I may need to get some HOYA filters instead of the canon's?

Also a step-up or step-down ring so I only have to have one filter.

[pcasciola]

As for the Lowepro backpak. Which one is everyone using?

I use the Micro Trekker 200. Really compact, and easily fits all my gear, including the 300 f/4L which is twice the size of the 75-300 you are looking at. It's got room for the body with primary lens, 5-6 additional lenses, flash, and more. The only thing I don't like about it is I cannot fit my laptop in the front pocket, although a tablet PC fits.

Here's a picture of the Micro Trekker with my first 3 lenses (http://www.casciola.com/camerabags/lowepro/micro2.jpg)

Everything in that picture was purchased from B&H as well. Great store.

[swatcop169]

As for the Lowepro backpak. Which one is everyone using?

I use the Micro Trekker 200. Really compact, and easily fits all my gear, including the 300 f/4L which is twice the size of the 75-300 you are looking at. It's got room for the body with primary lens, 5-6 additional lenses, flash, and more. The only thing I don't like about it is I cannot fit my laptop in the front pocket, although a tablet PC fits.

Here's a picture of the Micro Trekker with my first 3 lenses (http://www.casciola.com/camerabags/lowepro/micro2.jpg)

Everything in that picture was purchased from B&H as well. Great store.

Thanks. I would love to be able to get a L glass. But I think I can spread my $1K around better then just getting the one lens. Although that 300mm f4.0 looks mighty nice :)

[pcasciola]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the 300mm was that much better, I was just trying to say how much bigger it is and still fits well in the Micro Trekker 200, which you can get for $50. You're making the right lens choice in my opinion, although you might want to consider the 70-200 f/4L which is about $550 now at B&H after the rebate. It's arguably the best bang for your buck L glass out there.

The only reason I got the 300mm f/4L first was because my son only had four football games left and I knew I needed a fast 300mm and couldn't afford the 300mm f/2.8L, otherwise one of the 70-200s would have been my first choice. A 300mm prime is a very specific lens for a very specific use, and I probably won't use it much until next summer. The 75-300mm or the 70-200mm will be a much better all around lens for you.

[swatcop169]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the 300mm was that much better, I was just trying to say how much bigger it is and still fits well in the Micro Trekker 200, which you can get for $50. You're making the right lens choice in my opinion, although you might want to consider the 70-200 f/4L which is about $550 now at B&H after the rebate. It's arguably the best bang for your buck L glass out there.

The only reason I got the 300mm f/4L first was because my son only had four football games left and I knew I needed a fast 300mm and couldn't afford the 300mm f/2.8L, otherwise one of the 70-200s would have been my first choice. A 300mm prime is a very specific lens for a very specific use, and I probably won't use it much until next summer. The 75-300mm or the 70-200mm will be a much better all around lens for you.

I understand. I'm looking for something I can zoom with. I went to take pictures of the elk we have here and the 105mm just didn't do the trick. I need something I can get out there with. If you think the 70-200 would be a better choice I'll go back and take a look at it and drop some of the accessory's I have to adjust.

[psychedelic_never]

Hi swatcop, after looking at your shopping list i was wondering why do u need 2 CP filters (52 and 58 mm) you could have got the 58mm filter and a 52-58mm step up ring for the 50mm. That way you would have saved 30$

[pcasciola]

Oh, I didn't realize you were getting that lens for wildlife. You will probably want 300mm then at least. Elk are pretty big though, but you'd probably have to be within about 100 yards to fill the frame with a 200mm.

I realize this is a very crude method and someone will probably chime in and explain why it's wrong, but it's how I picked my 300mm and it worked. Take one of your 100mm pictures, and crop it down to 1/2 the original size. That will show you approximately what the framing would be with the 70-200 at full zoom. Crop to 1/3rd and that would show you the 75-300mm at full zoom.

[swatcop169]

Oh, I didn't realize you were getting that lens for wildlife. You will probably want 300mm then at least. Elk are pretty big though, but you'd probably have to be within about 100 yards to fill the frame with a 200mm.

I realize this is a very crude method and someone will probably chime in and explain why it's wrong, but it's how I picked my 300mm and it worked. Take one of your 100mm pictures, and crop it down to 1/2 the original size. That will show you approximately what the framing would be with the 70-200 at full zoom. Crop to 1/3rd and that would show you the 75-300mm at full zoom.

Ok you've just total lost me. Wildlife, scenery, etc will be taken with this lens. So can't rule out that. I just a overall tele-photo zoom lens.

[swatcop169]

What about this lens:
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO Aspherical Autofocus Lens
Its about $539 from b&h.com

Found the same lens for $442 from digital foto club.

I could get it amd the Canon MK II 1.8 and the backpak for the $1K

[wolf]

The Sigma 135-400 has gotten some fairly good reviews (http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Sigma/PRD_83589_3128crx.aspx). That might be a good one to look at for your purpose.

[swatcop169]

The Sigma 135-400 has gotten some fairly good reviews (http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Sigma/PRD_83589_3128crx.aspx). That might be a good one to look at for your purpose.

Thanks Wolf, this was what I was looking for. Reviews on the lens. I don't plan on taking shots of anything moving fast so that won't be a problem. I just need something I can reach out there with.

[swatcop169]

After doing some more searching I found this lens for $555
Sigma 170-500/5-6.3 APO Zoom Lens f/ Canon AF USA

Anyone use it? Samples?

[pcasciola]

Check out www.pbase.com and go to the camera database. You can find sample for just about any lens on the market there.

Here are some samples there for the Sigma 170-500mm (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/170-500_5-63_rf_apo)

[swatcop169]

Thanks. Is it me or does those images seem "blah" to you?

[Andy_T]

Thanks. Is it me or does those images seem "blah" to you?

That's pretty hard to tell ... because anytime you follow the link, you get a random sample of some 900 photographs from PBase taken with that lens.

So I don't know which photographs you looked at, buy among the ones I saw, there were some nice ones and a lot that are just so-so. Guess the photographer plays a role, too :wink:

But while the Canon 70-200/4.0 L will certainly deliver better image quality ... it's just 200 mm. With the 1.4 teleconverter, you could get it to roughly 280 mm, though.

If you spend a bit more money, however, you could get the 'Bigma' ... the Sigma 50-500. This is reputed to be one very fine lens for the money it costs ($ 1000) and its ownly downside is that is weighs nearly as much as your AR15 (4.1 lb) :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[swatcop169]

Thanks for the help. I belive I've made my mind up.

Going to go with the:
1. Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6 APO Aspherical AF Lens
2. Canon MK II 1.8 Lens
3. Lowepro Pro Trekker AW II Pak
4. Lens cleaning kit.

[Olegis]

I can recommend to look at the Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSF lens - it's getting wonderful reviews across the web. It seems to be VERY fast focussing, quite sharp, has very good build quality and constant aperture of f/4. You can get it here (http://www.deltainternational.com/store/Item_SGL100%2D300C.htm) for $785. Then you can add the Sigma x1.4 TC and end up with 140-420 f/5.6 and still enjoy very high quality pictures.

[Primevci]

yea be careful about judging on that website i jsut looked up the 100-400L and all the pics looked worse then what i could do with my crapp 75-300 mk III, so wouldnt totally judge the lens on what u see on pbase...

[swatcop169]

Thanks for the help guys. I belive i'm going to get the setup I mentioned a couple posts above. I would love to have the L glass but man they are expensive.