What Lens ?

[GAELICSTORM7]

Hello,

I would like some advice, if you could help a guy new to the world of digital.

I've owned canon SLR's (F1 and a couple of T90's plus fast prime lenses from 28mm to 300mm) for 15 years, and upto a couple of years ago only ever used them, then I bought a Canon A300 digital compact, which I really enjoyed using and was very impressed with the results, the only things I didn't like about my view of the digital world was the slow startup times, shutter lag and the A300 only has a digital zoom that was awful !.

Twelve months ago I checked out the 300D at a camera store and it just didn't "feel right" strange I know its a good camera, but I think first impressions are very important, so needless to say I stuck with the T90.

A couple of weeks ago I went to have a look at the 350D, when the guy in the shop was about to hand me the camera I wasn't too sure looked kind of small and toy like, but as soon as I got hold of it, that magic was there !, just like the first time I held a T90 !, money changed hands the EOS350D was mine, the guy in the shop smiled and said before you go try the grip on the body, 5 minutes later more money changed hands !.

Since then I've loved using the EOS350D, in all areas it's every bit as good as the T90 , I love having the ability to instantly review pictures and to swith ISO on the fly, no need for 2 bodies anymore !.

Sorry to ramble on but thought I'd give you some background !, here's what I'd like your opinions on.

I'm after a new lens, which one would you guys choose and why from the following list

Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM

Also, how would the lens listed below compare in your opinions with those above,it's alot less money than those above, but considering my maximum print size would be 12" x 16" would it be able to cope?

Tamron AF28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di

Look forward to your input !

Thanks

Alan.

[Skip Souza]

Welcome aboard, Alan. Congratulations on your new 350.
When I bought my 20d a few months ago I went with the Tamron 28-300 because of the low cost and wide range. While I was able to get some decent photos like http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=545615#post545615 I discovered that it needed a tight aperture to acheive sharp images, at least f/8 while f/11 was much better. It was also, shall we say, optimistic about being 300mm, more like 280mm or less. Like most zooms with such a wide range it tended to be soft at both ends. It's one saving grace was that it is extermely compact and light.
If I had to do it over again I believe that I would opt for the EF 70-200 f/4 L. By all accounts it is killer sharp all around.
My wife had the EF 75-300 IS and I preferred the Tamron as it was lighter, smaller and focused faster, though the IS can be handy.
You may find some intresting info regarding both these lenses at http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml
I have heard good things about the Sigma but I have no personal knoweledge.
You may also want to review the stickys at the top of this forum. Good luck.
Skip

[Mohawk]

Alan,

I would go with the fastest lens you can afford. The Canon 70-200mm f4L is a great lens, very very sharp, almost prime teritorry. Though if I had to chose off of your list, I would go with the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8. I takes decent images from what I have seen, but it is not an "L". I have my Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS permanantly attached to one body at all times. It goes every where with me, and is great around the house. And it also has some very nice bokeh, something my f4L version cannot mimic. If you can, hold out for the Canon 2.8L IS, it really is worth every penny.

Mike

[condyk]

Not nsure what you want the lens for so a bit hard to comment, but if that is the range you want then I've owned the Canon f4 and Sigma 70-200mm and the Sigma at f2.8 is simply a more useful lens unless you need something smaller and lighter more than the speed!

The Sigma is better value than the equivelent Canon L f2.8 and loses nothing in quality. The Canon IS version will always be a nice solution if you want to throw some good money away :lol: I'm just not convinced IS is needed at that length if you have decent handholding technique. BUT, if money isn't much of an issue I would certainly rather have IS than not.

The Sigma 100-300mm f4 is a better lens at similar price. The length is more useful (if you think you might want it) and it works great with a 1.4 TCon to offer 420mm of clean dynamic image quality. More suited to tripod/monopod mounting. f4 performance is better than the Canon L f4 in my experience.

The 75-300mm IS and variations on that lens I have no time for. Doesn't have the quality for me, but still capable of OK results.

[csnudelman]

I've owned canon SLR's (F1 and a couple of T90's plus fast prime lenses from 28mm to 300mm) for 15 years...
I'm after a new lens, which one would you guys choose and why from the following list

Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM

Also, how would the lens listed below compare in your opinions with those above,it's alot less money than those above, but considering my maximum print size would be 12" x 16" would it be able to cope?

Tamron AF28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di

Look forward to your input !

Thanks

Alan.

During these 15 years were your lenses Canon brand? If so why would you consider a 3rd party lens that, in all probility, will not be as compatable as a Canon lens (a lot of data going between camera and lens these days). Also you would need to get used to the focusing and zooming rings turning in reverse direction to a Canon lens.

[Andy_T]

Alan,

welcome to the forum :D

Check out this article (http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml), it gives an example by comparing shots of the Tamron 28-300, the Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS, Canon 75-300 IS and the Canon 70-300 DO IS. Maybe all you neet do see :shock:

The quality of the 70-200/4.0 should be identical with that of the 2.8 IS.

Best regards,
Andy

[GAELICSTORM7]

During these 15 years were your lenses Canon brand? If so why would you consider a 3rd party lens that, in all probility, will not be as compatable as a Canon lens (a lot of data going between camera and lens these days). Also you would need to get used to the focusing and zooming rings turning in reverse direction to a Canon lens.

Yes at the moment all the lenses I own are Canon FD prime lenses, these will of course not work with my EOS350D, so I'm after a new lens, I'm not a lens snob ;) , I'll happily use whatever make gives good results, Ive owned and used lenses from Sigma,Tamron and Vivitar in the past all with mixed results some good some bad, I like to keep an open mind !.

The Tamron sounds great for a compact do anything solution, at a great price, but I'm also very interested in the Canon 70-200 F4 quality wise I'm sure it would be much better than the little Tamron, but money wise it's alot more expensive and I'd not get the same coverage is the Tamron would give, aperture wise handholding either is something I don't think I'd have a problem with, and there's allways the possibility of a monopod or uping the ISO :) , all I've got to do now is sell my FD gear to fund it !.

Thanks guys

Alan.

[condyk]

... all I've got to do now is sell my FD gear to fund it !.

Ok, so that's the Canon 50mm II you'll be getting next then :lol: :lol: :p

Best of luck anyway. If you're used to Canon primes seems it might be a bit sticky getting the right quality for less money. How about a SH Canon f4. If you don't like it or upgrade later it has good resale: like a free rental really :)

[GAELICSTORM7]

Ok, so that's the Canon 50mm II you'll be getting next then :lol: :lol: :p



LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: too true

[skyphix]

T90 bodies go for a good chunk of money, still.

I need a new FD body as I have a few FD lenses, but my T70 died several times over its life, I finally gave up. I'd still like to shoot some film semi-manually, though, and with a nicer body than my 650 (as much as I love it)

I vote the Sigma 70-200 F2.8. Seems like a great lens, especially for the price compared to its competition (Canon 70-200 F2.8L non-IS)

edit: and a quick link to a thread you probably already read.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=83723

[lordjim]

I do not know the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 but I do know both the Canon 70-200 F4 L and the Canon 75-300 USM IS. I would strongly recommend the 70-200 F4 L . It renders great contrast and sharpness, it is relatively light and is very well built. Prior to owning the 70-200, I had the 75-300 and I almost gave up photography as I was very disappointed by the results. I would avoid it if I were you.

I am sure an experienced photograph can probably get some decent results with the 75-300 but, at equal skills, he would get sublim results with the 70-200 F4 L.

So in short I strongly recoomend the Canon 70-200 F4 L. You may also take that opportunity to grad a cheap 50mm F1.8 II and then if you find that 200mm is too short on occasions you can always consider a 1.4 teleconverter.

I hope that helps.