Ok folks... my wife lost a bet and I get to go shopping! ;-b
I'm searching for a longer zoom for the Rebel. I've already got the kits lens, the 28-105, and the 50 f1.8. I need more range (mostly for wildlife/bird shots). I'm considering either the Canon 75-300 IS or the 70-200L f/4 (and maybe the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM). I could swing the Canon 70-200 F2.8, but I'm not yet willing to blow $1000 on one lens. I'm leaning toward the 75-300 for the extra reach and IS feature. Can anyone comment on the differences between these?
Get the Canon 70-200mm f/4L, it's a fantastic lens and a real bargain when compared to some of the other comparable lenses out there. Although for bird photography you'd need more than a 200mm lens, for bigger animals it will be ok because of the 1.6x crop factor, but for birds you need more.
Well, the 70-200 f/4L is optically far superior to the 75-300 lenses. The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is also very good. I would go with one of the 70-200’s over the 75-300. The Canon is probably the best zoom lens I have ever used. The Sigma is pretty far up there too and gives an extra stop.
For wildlife/birds 200mm really isn’t enough and 300mm is borderline. I would look into something like the EF 100-400 IS or the Bigma or maybe the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX or the new Sigma 80-400 OS.
Thanks for the comments. I think the faster 70-200 lenses somewhat compensate for the lack of IS, but I'm a little hesitant to give up an extra 100mm while spending more money.
The EF 75-300 IS is probably the worst lens Canon makes optically. At least it is the worst one I have tried and I have tried a lot of them. It is pretty soft past 200mm and suffers a lot from CA. The Sigma 70-200 and Canon 70-200’s are outstanding optically.
You might be able to get a good deal on Ebay but it can be tough. I got my EF 200mm f/2.8L from B&H used for $475 in 9 condition. I really can't tell any difference between it and my 70-200mm f/4L IS on my old 1D, 10D or my current digital rebel body. You can probably tell a difference on a 1Ds but I haven't ever tried it.
While the lenses might be very close optically, I think the speed of the f2.8 might allow me to capture action shots a little easier. I took these Saturday with the 28-105...
get the new canon --28mm- 300mm USM L that is brand new out.
Spned a little more the first time is my advice esp if you can. In the long run you wont have to upgrade, lose money and have a ton of extra lens., I already have 2 in that category.
I highly recommend the 100- 400mm canon IS ISM L
I use it for just about everything, but macros.
and it is great range for birds, IMO (and i like to shoot birds) a 200mm would not be long enough.
Well if you want the speed, the SIgma 70-200 has the speed and the great versitility of being a zoom.
Greg
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dadas115:
I really can't tell any difference...
While the lenses might be very close optically, I think the speed of the f2.8 might allow me to capture action shots a little easier. I took these Saturday with the 28-105...
Ellamay- it'll take a much bigger bet before my wife allows me to spend more on a lens than the camera. I could go that route, but my next Challenge entry would be "Outside Looking In" if you know what I mean.
While the lenses might be very close optically, I think the speed of the f2.8 might allow me to capture action shots a little easier.
Only if you are going to be shooting wide-open in poor lighting conditions. If you're shooting your 2.8 lens at 4 (or higher) the majority of the time, then you might as well have gotten the f/4 lens and saved some coin. Outdoors, a fast lens isn't nearly as necessary.
That being said, I agree with everyone else, get the Canon 70-200/4L. It is a stellar lens. And... you can buy the 1.4X teleconverter down the road (as Spazmo99 suggested) and have a 100-280/5.6L. With this combo, you're no worse off in terms of maximum aperture when compared to the 75-300 (which varies from f/4-5.6) and the optical quality of the 70-200/4L really is better compared to the 75-300...
I get the hint. Canon 70-200 is the front-runner. Are there any other lenses in that $300-600 range that might be better? Tamron, Sigma, etc.?
You said birds, so:
A used Sigma f/2.8 70-210mm, $400, the 82mm filter version. This is an awesome, all metal lens, which starts a person off with a great, bright, fast base lens (specs available from me on request). Add a Tamron SP 2x Teleconverter, $200. The Sigma lens remains auto-focus with this fine teleconverter, which means the combination has good light gathering capability. The used Sigma (note 210, not 200) may have to be sent to Sigma for a **FREE** upgrade, but that is great because they tune and clean it all up like new, too. (Of course, this is the combination I use :D) And, you can still slap on a Kenko Pro 300 3x Teleconverter for a quite usable 630mm f/8.0 lens, which is really nice (required) for birds. 620mm f/8 is the best I can afford for less than $$ a lot. With a lot of money in my pocket, I would like a Sigma the 50-500mm f/4-6.3 APO EX Hyperzoom, $940, with an occasional 1.4x teleconverter, or the Sigma 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 EX OS (Optical Stabilizer) Apo, $1200, also with a 1.4x teleconverter
I think I'll stick with EddyG on this one. The Sigma 70-200 is $160 more than the Canon, and I doubt that I'd get a 2x teleconverter. If I ever need that much reach, I'll be looking for a sf 300 or 400 lens. I'm getting a few more things off my wish list... a lens hood for the 28-105, a Sto-fen Omni-Bounce for the 420ex, and maybe adapters for my telescope. It's Christmas in April!
Two more questions for this panel of experts:
1. I want to protect this lens, but B&H doesn't seem to carry a 67mm Canon UV Filter. Given the high quality optics on the 70-200/4L, is the General brand UV filter OK? Assuming I only got one, would a General brand polarizer be preferable to the UV filter?
2. I've got a LowePro Nova 1 AW camera bag, which is a snug fit for the Rebel/28-105 lens, 50mm lens and 420ex flash. I'm thinking about a LowePro 2 or 3 AW to make room for the 70-200 lens. Can anybody comment on this or suggest a better alternative (under $60)?
grdSavant- Thanks for the suggestions. I checked them out, and unfortunately the Sigma lenses are rated fairly poorly compared to the Canon L series. The Sigma 70-200 (not 210) is pretty good, but still not quite at the the level of the Canon. Also, I don't think the Rebel can focus properly above f5.6, so the longer zooms you mentioned are moot.
The used Sigma (note 210, not 200) may have to be sent to Sigma for a **FREE** upgrade, but that is great because they tune and clean it all up like new, too.
I heard a while back that Sigma was no longer re-chipping some of their older lenses to work with Canon AF. I think they have a limited number of re-chipping kits available. You might want to check that out before buying an older Sigma lens.
