To Sigma or Not - plus teleconverters

[amateurphotog]

Thanks to all who posted in response to my earlier questions.

 

I visited the local camera shop and got nothing but frustrated. I tried to

follow some very good advice about trying lens' weights before purchasing and

they didn't even have the Canon 200/f2.8 prime lens in stock nor the Sigma

70-200/f2.8 either. They didn't even have the Canon EF 70-200/f4 either. So I

looked at the rental list and they didn't have two of the three lenses I wanted

to try. Plus the stinking counter person acted like he only wanted to help

pros, experienced people who knew exactly what they wanted. I wanted to scream

and slug him! After the treatment I received I felt like never purchasing

anything there at all. And there are no "try outs" from Internet shopping like

B&H or Adorama.

 

I don't know what to do now as I wasn't able to try or test any of the three

lenses I am considering which are the Sigma 70-200/f2.8, Canon EF 70-200/f4L, or

the Canon 200/f2.8L.

 

After so much ranting (for which I apologize) I ask:

 

1. What is the difference between the L and IS in Canon's line - e.g.

70-200/f4L versus 70-200/f4 IS? Is one faster than the other?

 

2. Do I have to pretty much purchase a teleconverter for each brand lense I use?

 

3. Should I drop the Sigma 70-200/f2.8 from consideration due to its weight?

 

4. What is a good 300mm lense?

[sattler123]

You can order a lens from B&H or Amazon, try it out and return it if it does not live up to your expectations. You only pay for shipping - in the case of Amazon they will even pay for the return shipping.

 

IS means Image Stabilization and is very useful, especially in longer lenses - it will allow you to hand hold more shots than you normaly would be able to. There is no 70-200/f4 IS lens from Canon - you are confusing it with the 2.8 lens and that one is heavier and bigger (also costs way more).

[pto189]

<i>in the case of Amazon they will even pay for the return shipping.</i><p>

It's not true. When you want to return an item that has been ordered from Amazon, you follow the return steps including a return label. If you have received a defected item, Amazon will pay for the cost of shippping in both ways. However, if you change your mind and if there is nothing wrong with the item, you will receive refund that is the difference between the purchase price and the shipping and handing <b>both ways even the item with Amazon free S/H.</b>

[sattler123]

They paid for mine and I was honest when I filled out the return form - the lens was not as sharp as I had hoped for.

[thomas_sullivan]

what do you want to use the lens for?

 

for best image....yes, you should use a teleconverter designed for that lens. There are some overlaps, I believe, but not that many.

 

as above, there is no Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. If you do mean the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS, it's pretty heavy itself. There is also a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 NON IS.......again pretty heavy itself.

 

But, first.....what do you want to use the lens for?

[amateurphotog]

I want to photograph people and animals outdoors that are quite far away. In current photos with my 28-70mm I can't get a full frame unless I get close which I can't always do - e.g. dogs at the dog park.

 

Also I have some senics that have elements that are so small with my current lens and I can't get physically closer.

[bennyboy]

It amazes me that some stores stay in business, do these people not realise that the customer pays their wages? It's not like you wanted to buy the cheapest lens this guy could sell you either, it makes my blood boil. I'm lucky enough to have a superb local store, who are only too happy to help anyone from complete novice, to studio professional. I think I must chat with them about photography for almost an hour each time I visit, having to try hard to drag myself away. They even look over my photos and critique them.

 

The difference may be that they are all also freelance professional photogrpahers who help out their dad with the family business.

 

Anyhow, I bought a Sigma 70-200 EX DG as one of my first purchases and it is quite simply stunning (when handled correctly), it is relatively heavy, but not back breaking (I'm 6 foot 200lbs which may help), coupled with a sigma 1.4X TC image quality is still better than most consumer grade lenses. This is my portraiture lens of choice from my lens line up.

 

However, I still felt I needed more reach and eventually bought an EF 400 f/5.6L - an absolute peach of a lens, but one that takes quite some technical ability to use effectively, I'm still attempting to master it in challenging lighting situations - and here in the UK most all lighting situations are challenging for a 400 f/5.6.

 

My Sigma TC works equally well with the 400 as with the 70-200, it also works well with a lot of my other lens, but not all (EF-S, forget it).

 

Most all the Canon 300 primes are outstanding, but they are big, heavy , and expensive. I have no experience with any zooms that reach to 300mm.

 

If you look in my portfolio, at the bottom in the test shots folder is a photo of a crow perched in a tree shot at 400mm with the TC, I've also shown a 50mm shot with a red box showing the area the 400mm & TC lens covers. This may aid you in your focal length decision. All the shots were taken on a 1.6X crop 350D (Rebel XT).

 

Good luck.

[pjmeade]

John, if the staff in that shop treat you like that, vote with your feet. As Ben says, keeping you happy keeps them in a job. The term for shops with lousey customer service is "out of business".

 

Ben gives his vote for the Sigma lens, mine goes with the Canon 70-200/f4. I've had trouble free use for the last 12 months, I think it's an excellent lens. A great many shots in my portfolio come from that lens.

 

As for 300 mm lenses, the Canon 300/f4 IS is reputed to be of the highest quality. The price is around 900GBP, which is not huge.

 

Hopes this helps. P

[yakim_peled1]

>> I am considering which are the Sigma 70-200/f2.8, Canon EF 70-200/f4L, or the Canon 200/f2.8L.

 

I had the last two and the prime was the clear superior one. Sharper and a lot more flare resistant. I also appreciated the fact that it was shorter and painted black, thus making it a lot less of an attention grabber. Another option is the new 70-300 IS. Lighter, optically excellent and with amazingly good IS. Build quality however, is nowhere near these three.

 

>> Do I have to pretty much purchase a teleconverter for each brand lense I use?

 

Sigma lenses are reported to work best only with Sigma TCs. The Canon ones are limited to a select few tele lenses (including the ones in your list).

 

>> Should I drop the Sigma 70-200/f2.8 from consideration due to its weight?

 

Some think that a 1.5 Kg lens is too heavy but others don't. It's personal. You will need to try this yourself.

 

>> What is a good 300mm lense?

 

In which budget? In which weight? I repeat my 70-300 IS recommendation as a good starting point.

 

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[lester_wareham]

I have the 200/2.8 out of that mix and it is very sharp. It is quite light and compact also, works very well with both the EF 1.4X and EF 2X.

 

It can be difficult to to find lenses in stoke to try - I just work out what I want and get them over the web now.

 

Keep in mind that between two lenses on the same weight the longer one, even if only slightly longer, can feel a lot more cumbersom to hold. Then remeber you may add a TC and or extension tubes.

[marknagel]

John, what camera store did you go to? Sounds like the same treatment you get at National Camera and Video in Minnesota. I had the same experience with them and boycott them now. Funny thin is, I'm my unions negotiating chairan and I ALWAY try and help the local stores, even if it cost more. But they lost out on over $10,000 worth of sales this year from me. I stick to B&H now.

 

If money is not a consideration, the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS is the best or the 100-400L IS. Both are very sharp, the 2.8 is just faster and better for low light to get a faster shutter speed. Both are aroung $1400-$1600, but worth it. If you get those lenses I'd get the Canon teleconverters.

 

Otherwise, the 70-300IS is a very good lens. Its light weight and cost aroun $500. This lens I believe the Tamron teleconverter would be the best choice. I Think they can be used with almost any EF lens.

 

Mark

[images_in_light_north_west]

the canon 300 f4 L IS is a great lens from all reviews and not overly expensive, I think even with IS it takes some getting used to, and with a 1.4 TC on a 1.6 crop you can get good reach 480 and 672, IS will be required with out a tripod over 300, or less for some.

[tony_c2]

If you don't need IS, another possible consideration is the Sigma 100-300/f4.

[mike t.]

I second Tony's suggestion. The Sigma 100-300/4 is a cracking lens. KEH has one for, iirc, $649. Their return policy is as good as it gets, btw.

 

Good luck with your decision.

 

Mike

[doug_landrum]

In the focal length range that you are considering, get an image stabilized lens.

 

You cannot hand hold a nonstabilized lens and get sharp results unless 1) you shoot at shutter speeds in the 1/focal length and divide by two or 2) you use a big, solid tripod.

 

To explain the shutter speed issue, for a non-IS lens, you will need to shoot a 200mm focal length at 1/400 sec. and a 300mm focal length at 1/600 sec. to get good results. (The rule of thumb for pros or advanced amateurs who practice steady hand holding is that one stop slower speeds produce acceptable results.)

 

So unless you are willing to spend money on lenses similarly to me the Canon 70-300 IS would be your best bet. If you are in the spending mode, then get the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM. I have it and the lens is superb. I bought a Canon 1.4 teleconverter for the lens today. I think it will be great, too.

 

Good luck. Get IS.

[ken munn]

"You cannot hand hold a nonstabilized lens and get sharp results unless 1) you shoot at

shutter speeds in the 1/focal length and divide by two or 2) you use a big, solid tripod."

 

To disagree with Doug, the 'rule of thumb' I've always known is that the minimum speed to

shoot at is 1/focal length, not 1/twice focal length. And you can shoot slower than that

without a big solid tripod. I do it frequently using a monopod, or by bracing the camera/lens

against something like a car roof, tree, rock or wall.