Lenses, Lenses...?

[barry_kleinberg]

I rekindled my love of photography earlier this year and have had

some success with my picture taking (having had a couple of shots

published in AP) using the EOS 300 and "twin kit" lenses.

 

I have recently replaced the 28 - 90 (kit c%$p) with the Sigma 15 -

30 (as I hope to get a 10D or 300D at some point in the future) and

a Tokina 28 - 70 f2.8 (very heavy but lovely).

 

The question is how do I upgrade the "poor" kit 75 - 300 USM? I

would love to get a couple of nice prime lenses but these are soooo

expensive. What about something like the Sigma/Tokina 70 - 200 f.28?

 

I shoot a lot of wildlife and some sport (when I get the chance).

 

Your views please.Thanks

 

Barry

[lsaavedra]

Try EF 70-200 f/4L USM or it's big brother f/2.8L USM the difference, beside the obvious larger aperture, is the weight and the price but performance is outstanding in both cases. So, ask yourself if you really need the extra f stop. In my case I chose the f/4 because of the weight (and the price of course) and if I really need the extra stop in the future (not at this moment) I will get the f/2.8 IS version. Hope this help you, regards

[mark u]

The 70-200 F4L is a very fine lens, and works well with a 1.4x TC to give you 280mm F5.6. It is THE bargain among Canon L zoom lenses. If you want a faster lens, then the F2.8 version is an alternative, with its IS cousin highly desirable - but for that money you could get your "couple of primes". Alternatively, you could consider the Sigma 70-200 EX F2.8 HSM, which is optically pretty much the same as the Canon F2.8 at a fraction of the price. On your EOS 300 you would get much the same AF speed too (the superior AF performance of the Canon only shows on an EOS 3 and above). You lose marginally on build quality, weight and close focus distance. Also well worth considering is the Sigma 100-300 EX F4 HSM, which is another optically excellent lens, with similar disadvantages to its shorter cousin. As you shoot wildlife, having 300 at the long end may be more important to you - and you could get to 420 F5.6 with a 1.4x TC.

 

Cheaper Canon alternatives include the old 100-300 F5.6L - optically good, but slower, and a push-pull design, and you would lose AF with a TC. Similar thoughts apply to the 100-300 F4-5.6 USM. Look at the following link for comment on the Canon xx-300 lenses:-

 

http://www.photo.net/learn/nature/x-300

 

A possible hazard with going a Sigma route is that the lens might need to be re-chipped if you get a 300D (though should be fine with a 10D). As the camera hasn't been released yet, no-one can say for certain either way, although the compatability problems that plagued Sigma lenses on Canon bodies a few years ago has not yet surfaced on any of their HSM lenses.

 

Your choice will depend on what you are prepared to spend and to carry.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

The answer as is often the case is buy used. Then you'll almost certainly be looking at quality Canon lenses.

 

I've just seen advertised a 80-200 2.8L at two thirds the price of a new Sigma 70-200 2.8.

 

I bought a 135 2.8 for £180 and I wouldn't swap it for the world (and it's a 216mm 2.8 when I get a 10d).

 

You won't find many on this site recommend anything other than Canon optics. However you should have a read of some other reviews you might find something that suits your needs and pocket better.

[John Crowe]

Do not discount the idea of a prime lens. When you use your 75-300mm what focal length do you usually set it at? Personally I do not find much use for a focal length between 85mm and 200mm. You are already covered to 70mm so why not consider a used Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L USM, extremely high quality, for less than one of the f2.8 or f4 zooms. At a later date you can add either teleconverter and maintain autofocus. Yes, stick with Canon when you can. Good luck.

[yakim_peled1]

I just bought the 200/2.8 or 550$. Excellent lens. Also consider the 300/4 non-IS. It's prices are quite low relatively to the IS model.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.