Ready to purchase a new lens, but which one?

[richsmith_uk]

I've got a canon 300d with the lens kit (18-55mm) and a canon 55-200 f4.5-5.6 II USM. I Mainly take horse jumping pictures (outdoor and indoor). I recently borrowed a friends canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS L series lens and was very vey impressed. The only reason I didn't buy one straight away was because of the price. Is there anything else out there that you'd recommend? Or am I best paying the extra for the canon lens?

[defordphoto]

70-200L f/4. Tons cheaper. Just as sharp. No IS, but that won't matter on outdoor equestrian events.

[darkdrakon]

Go with the 70-200 F/4 I am curently waiting for mine I borrowed a friends and it just blew me away .

[chops]

Or you can get the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 for a little under a $1000US. It's claimed to be just about as sharp as Canon's 70-200 F/2.8 L lenses, and for alot less money. ;)

[Jonny]

70-200L f/4. Tons cheaper. Just as sharp. No IS, but that won't matter on outdoor equestrian events.

But will the F4 be fast enough for indoor sports? The 70-200 F2.8 would be better IMHO, it is quite a bit cheaper than the IS version.

[ron chappel]

Outdoors the choice is simple-70-200/4! It's as sharp as the best and is the cheapest of the Pro lenses.

If you are having no problems with low shutter speeds indoors (with the 55-200) then the 70-200/4 will do perfectly indoors as well
BUT..
if you need faster shutter speeds indoors then the options are:
Sigma 70-200/2.8 -one stop faster than the 70-200/4 but *NOT* as sharp as someone stated above .See the example photo on this page http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009Yqf
-of course the sigma will be waaaay sharper than your current lens so would still be a massive improvement :)
Canon 70-200/2.8 Also 1 stop faster than the 200/4 but seriously sharp
Canon 70-200/2.8 IS a total of three(+?) stops improvement in low light performance over the 70-200/4.Only one stop improvement in shutter speed though,the rest comes from the image stabilization so something to consider if super high shutter speeds are needed in certain situation (in other words this lens may not nessesarily be the perfect cure-all for all problems)

[chops]

Sigma 70-200/2.8 -one stop faster than the 70-200/4 but *NOT* as sharp as someone stated above .See the example photo on this page http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009Yqf
-of course the sigma will be waaaay sharper than your current lens so would still be a massive improvement :)

I never said it was as sharp, I said that "it's claimed to be just about as sharp as Canon's 70-200 F/2.8 L lenses"

That's quite a difference. :rolleyes:

[defordphoto]

But will the F4 be fast enough for indoor sports? The 70-200 F2.8 would be better IMHO, it is quite a bit cheaper than the IS version.

Yes. Good point. I missed he was shooting indoors. And it'll be tough enough the way it is shooting this type of sport with a Drebel. If they allow flash that's another option.

I never said it was as sharp, I said that "it's claimed to be just about as sharp as Canon's 70-200 F/2.8 L lenses"

And the Sigma is no way as sharp as the Canon lens, no matter who said it! :rolleyes:

[Deckyon]

I would not trade my 70-200 f/2.8 IS L for the world, unless someone offered up a new Canon 600mm for even trade. I have been able to get shots that others miss because of the f/2.8 and IS. I shoot a lot in a group with my local photo club, and most have Canon gear, so we trade lenses around a lot, but I have yet to allow anyone near my 70-200. It's my baby. Expensive? Absolutly.

[khiromu]

If you don't mind buying used, you might want to check older Canon 80-200/2.8L. It is said to have sharper optics than newer 70-200/2.8L. A couple of cons are, no USM, doesn't take Canon TCs, minimum focusing is longer than newer ones, and I am not sure if you can get it serviced at Canon when needed.

[snibbetsj]

If you don't have to have a zoom, you might look the 200 f2.8L USM. It's only a little more than the 70-200 f4.

(It's also on my rather long list of things I really need :cool: )

[Mogwyth]

Check out the ratings at photodo.com the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is rated overall 3.9 the 2 Canons (f/4 &f/2.8 L) 4.1. so the difference acording to them is small. In fact they rate the Sigma higher at 135 than the Canon f/4.

In real use I have compared my Sigma with a friends Canon f/4 and yes at 70mm the canon is sharper when the images are viewed at 100% but at 135 and 200 we can't see any difference. You pays your money you makes your choice, personaly I think the sigma is a helluva lens for the money, and you can add the 1.4 extender and have a 280 f/4.

[jaypie77]

Have you considered the Canon 200mm f/2.8 prime? It's pretty cheap - same neighborhood as the 70-200 f/4 - but it reaches further. Just think about how often you'll need to actually zoom below 200. I would look through my photo album and see what the majority of my shots are. When I did this with my 55-200, I found that a large majority of shots were up in the 200 area and nothing below 100. Furthermore, many of the shots that I took below 200 were taken because I knew that the 55-200 wasn't the most reliable (for me) around 200. Think about your options because the 200 prime could be exactly what you need.

On preview: snibbets knows what's up.

[chops]

And the Sigma is no way as sharp as the Canon lens, no matter who said it! :rolleyes:
Actually, there is a link to a site somewhere here in the forum that shows the comarisons of different makes and models of lenses, and clearly shows that the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 ranks right in between the Canon 70-200 F2.8 and the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS for sharpness.

And that chart is not made up of just one review either, but from numerious individuals.

So, to argue your statement.... YES, the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 CAN and IS just as sharp as the Canon equivalents. Not to mention that I have a customer who has both lenses and prefers the Sigma. I have seen identical shots made with each lens, then blown up to 20x30's, and the Sigma is every bit as sharp as the Canon!

[skimmilk68]

what do u guys think of the 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ?

any other good telephoto zoom lenses around $500 and below??

[RichardtheSane]

I think maybe you should start a new thread and state your needs etc.

Tagging an unrelated question at the bottom of someone else thread will not get you the info you need.

[ron chappel]

Actually, there is a link to a site somewhere here in the forum that shows the comarisons of different makes and models of lenses, and clearly shows that the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 ranks right in between the Canon 70-200 F2.8 and the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS for sharpness.

And that chart is not made up of just one review either, but from numerious individuals.

So, to argue your statement.... YES, the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 CAN and IS just as sharp as the Canon equivalents........
I just saw that recently i think :)
While i don't totally agree with their opinions of the results,the point is that the sigma is *VERY* close...and as someone said-is actually better looking at times!

I'm slowly comming around to maybe considering the sigma as a serious allternative.
I've seen -and had myself-pretty dreadfull results with sigma lenses so it will take a fair bit to fully convince me

[ron chappel]

what do u guys think of the 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ?

any other good telephoto zoom lenses around $500 and below??
The 75-300 is an optically cheap lens with very expensive image stabilization built in.
I have one now and have used many other consumer zooms.It's no better and indeed worse than some.

Below the pro zooms,the best consumer zooms are the canon 100-300/4.5-5.6 usm
and sigma 70-300 apo macro super II

One other option is the old 100-300/5.6 L .It has great optics but very slow focus and the restrictive 5.6 aperture