Need long tele for Rebel XT

[rmpcanon]

I recently purchased a Rebel XT w/Canon 17-85 IS lens. I had planned to use a Sigma 70-210 long telephoto from my old Elan; but alas, the lens will not work on the XT, and is too old to be "re-chipped". Accordingly I am looking for a replacement to supplement the 17-85.

My LCS recommended the EF Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM. What do you think?

Since I was used to a 70-210, moving up to an effective max zoom of 460mm sounds appealing, provided there are no downsides to the greater magnification capability. Are there? Also, since my old lens speed was 3.8/5.6, and I was happy with that, I don't think I want to pay extra for a little faster lens (maybe for IS, but after paying $600 for the 17-85 IS I suspect IS on a long zoom would be too pricey).

What do you think? The Canon 75-300 can be purchased for less than $200 on Amazon. The idea of sticking w/the Canon brand now has more importance than it used to, but not if Sigma/Tamron/Etc. have significantly superior lenses at the same price point. Do they? Also, I don't want to be penny-wise and pound foolish -- I have more than $1,600 invested already; don't want to pair it up w/junk.

Also one last question -- I always have used UV or Skylight filters on the fronts of my lenses for protection of the lenses rather than for whatever effect the filters provide. How important is the quality of those filters -- do they in effect nullify the extra quality of high-end lenses? Do you guys use "protective" filters or just keep wiping clean the main lens? If the quality of the filter IS significant, which do you recommend?

Thanks for your help. This forum is a great resource.

Dick P.
Pbrowse@aol.com

[cfcRebel]

I'm pretty happy with my EF100-300. I also heard great things about Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro II(Red stripe). ;)

I have Canon UV filter on my 100-300, and Tiffen UV filter on the 50mm 1.8II

[CRE@TE]

I'd consider the Canon 70-200 F/4 L. Excellent, but, expensive. One of the best Canon has to offer.

[foxbat]

If price is an issue then the 70-200 f/4L is a good choice and you can always save for a 1.4x TC later on and still have AF. I'll bet that even with a TC the image quality is better than the cheapo 75-300.

If you're feeling rich then the image quality produced by the Canon primes (135, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600) is unsurpassed by anything on the market.

[Rob612]

If price is an issue then the 70-200 f/4L is a good choice and you can always save for a 1.4x TC later on and still have AF. I'll bet that even with a TC the image quality is better than the cheapo 75-300.

I'll second that.

[condyk]

What exactly is your budget and where and for what do you want to use the lens? These issues impact on the usefulness of any recommendation.

I don't use filters normally and my lenses don't need cleaning. Handle them with care, don't touch the glass and use hoods to protect them. A clean lint free cloth, as used for cleaning glasses, can gently wipe any dust away if you can see it appearing on images.

[Hellashot]

I don't recommend the EF 75-300. Consider the Bigma 50-500 by Sigma that I think I'm going to be soon.

[Mitcon]

I think what condyk said is a good starting point. Hard for people to say without knowing the intended use. But that said I hear alot of good things about the Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro for it's price. I have the Canon 75-300 usm II while I was quite happy using it the photos were not that sharp.

I just got the Bigma & find it far sharper even at the 500mm end. I think that a hood is better than just a UV filter for protection. Also I would think any glass put in-front of your camera would affect your image to some extent. I'm new to photography still so others may correct me. I would avoid cheap filters personally and just be more careful with my glass.

I would use filters such as ND or polarisers and the likes if what I was shooting would benefit but I would buy the best I could afford only. I hardly ever need to wipe my lenses clean as I just try to avoid touching the glass,for dust and other things that get on it I just use a blower.

If I do need to wipe the glass I use the blower first, then a microfibe cloth. I have only once had to use a optical cleaning fluid for a tough spot, and when I did that I spary the fluid onto the cloth. Never spary onto the lens as it would be horrible to force fluid into your lens.

[Mcbeans]

I'm looking for a tele lens for my XT as well. I was eyeing the Sigma 100-300 F/4. Does anyone know how this lens compares to the canon 70-200 F/4 ?

[xuxu1]

It can be tough saving up for a decent lens. But it´s better to take your time until you´ve saved enough for the "good" lens. Much better than wasting the cash for a cheapo and at the end buying the "good" lens some other time also.

Even though the 75-300 is a nice lens for the money, i second the suggestions from others here on the forum to go for the 70-200L f/4 and add a 1.4 TC later on. Depending on your shooting habits, you might consider saving for a longer time and buy an even better one.

As you have noticed, your 3rd party lens can´t be re-chiped and therefore won´t work with your digital camera. That´s exactly the reason why (even though there are very nice and good 3rd party lenses on the market) i stick to canon lenses.

ED

[Mcbeans]

A newby question....I'm not sure I understand what "Re-chipped" exactly means....can someone explain?

[condyk]

I'm looking for a tele lens for my XT as well. I was eyeing the Sigma 100-300 F/4. Does anyone know how this lens compares to the canon 70-200 F/4 ?

I owned both and loved the 70-200mm but it didn't have a useful range for me and I was disappointed in its lower light performance. Superb if you work within its constraints tho'.

I then owned the Sigma 50-500mm which has a great reputation as a wildlife/birding lens and I got some great shots, but handheld you need a lot of skill and luck and the number of keepers was too small. On a tripod, monopod (still tricky, but OK) or beanbag it's awesome and despite the weight and size a lovely balance to it. Weight and size are stock criticisms but when in use they becaome a lesser concern.

So, I finally came upon the 100-300mm f4, via a 80-400mm OS, mainly based on comments from owners I respect on this forum, and I really love it. Again, hand held it is tricky at times, but all big lenses are, and I feel I get what I loved in the 70-200mm Canon (3D life and dynamic colour) AND also the useful extra 100mm length.

With the Sigma 1.4 TCon, which performs like it was made for this lens ... it probably was :lol: ... the 420mm really gives an edge over any competing lens in the price band. Scores very highly at all the main three user review sites and highly recommended ... but it's not cheap when you add the TCon.

I'd say quality between the two is the same, but they are different. Sigma is better with the SIgma TCon than the Canon was with a Kenko Pro 300 (a high quality TCon) that I had. AF remains sharp and super fast, but with the Canon I noticed it lost some edge: it may be better with the 1.4x Canon TCon, but adds quite a bit of cost. My 100-300mm seems to perform better in lower light than my Canon did, but it's hard to be sure: it's still not ideal by any means.

Both are great buys, but ultimately it's about what you want to spend and if you want the extra 100mm. II think 400mm plus is essential for wildlife and the realistic minimum for consistent birding satisfaction. You need to assess what you want it for. Could be the 70-200mm is a cheaper and lighter choice ... or it may fall short.

[robertwgross]

A newby question....I'm not sure I understand what "Re-chipped" exactly means....can someone explain?

A lens like this has embedded software code that operates it and allows it to communicate properly with the camera body. That code is contained within one integrated circuit. If you have a problem, in some cases the manufacturer can pull out the IC and replace it with one with newer code. In some cases, the manufacturer cannot easily pull out the IC. In some cases, the manufacturer simply does not want to replace it because it is too old.

---Bob Gross---