Lens Questions

[Medic1]

Ok, Ok....I know this has been posted before...but I could not find it, and it didn't really cover my questions.

I am shooting with the 300D. I am doing it only as a hobby and occassionally enlarging a few images for framing etc. I only have the kit lens right now and am looking to get something with a decent range to it......I am shooting mainly nature/wildlife and landscape, but would also like to get some decent pics at this years local airshows and races. I have been debating over and over about what lens to buy. Here are a couple I was looking at

Sigma 70-300 f/2.8 HSM EX APO for $1100 CAN
Canon 70-200 f4 USM for $849 CAN

I know I would love to get the f/2.8 Canon but its almost twice as much and I am not sure I can swing that unless its an absolute necessity over the f4......the local camera shop is pushing the Sigma, but from what I have read it will not focus as quickly as the Canon and the Canon has more elements in more groups........

I need some help here guys! Thanks

[Medic1]

Also.....how hard is it going to be for me to take pics at longer focal lengths without the image stabalizer? On one hand its great to have the IS if I am still, but I have heard it will have a hard time tracking and stabalizing if I am shooting a moving object...such as a plane or car......

[skimmilk68]

haha i need the same question answered too :D

[tim]

My experience is limited, but I had a 300mm lens for a little while - the sigma 70-300 APO F4.5-5.6 (guessing the F). I found it didn't let enough light in in anything but bright daylight, and that for birds at any distance 300mm wasn't quite enough. I found I needed to use quite fast shutter speeds to prevent hand shake - less than 1/300.

If you're shooting big wildlife with a tripod the 300mm lens could be fine, but the 100-400L IS would be perfect - if not for the $1369 price :(

[Sherpa]

I was in exactly the same predicament as yourself. I like to shoot wildlife, airshows and motorsport with my 300D. I bought the 70-200 f/4 and while it is a fantastic lens is doesn't give enough 'reach' and I got a bit frustrated with it. I bought the 1.4x extender but was still not 100% happy. I then took the plunge and bought the 100-400 L which is the answer to my prayers. I'll probably sell the 70-200 now and keep the 1.4x extender to use with the 100-400. My advice would be to hold out for this lens - it's worth the investment.

[skimmilk68]

hey sherpa PM me if you wanna sell me your 70-200... give me a reasonable price

[Jesper]

.....the local camera shop is pushing the Sigma, but from what I have read it will not focus as quickly as the Canon and the Canon has more elements in more groups........More elements in more groups does not make the Canon lens necessarily better in any way.

[ron chappel]

A very recent thread was discussing this and someone gave a link to a test done with the 70-200/4,70-200/2.8 and sigma 70-200/2.8.
It was done at different focal lengths and apertures so was the best i've yet seen online.
Check out recent threads
I will have a look to find it too

[ron chappel]

here it is!
http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html

[Longwatcher]

Also.....how hard is it going to be for me to take pics at longer focal lengths without the image stabalizer? On one hand its great to have the IS if I am still, but I have heard it will have a hard time tracking and stabalizing if I am shooting a moving object...such as a plane or car......

Here is what happens when you set IS on a 70-200/2.8L IS (that or my 100-400 (it has been awhile)) on setting 2 (panning)

http://www.longwatcher.com/images/Langley%20Airshow%202004/AT&T_F-86.jpg

Works pretty good I thought.

[skimmilk68]

wow the 75-300 IS isnt really that much different from the L from that review

[ron chappel]

The 75-300 lenses can get some very good images,there's no doubt about that

But while they seem to show detail in test shots ,they don't perform as well in actual use.That's been my experience so far anyway