jd_orion Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 I didn't get many decent answeres in the general photo forum so I came here. I'm looking for a telephoto lens (fixed or zoom) for distant subjects. There are specifics that I am considering but I've never used. I would like to get some user opinions on any of these lenses: Canon 300 F4L, Canon 100-300 F5.6L, Tamron 200-400, Tokina 100-300 F4 AT-X, Tokina AT-X 300 F4, Sigma 135-400 APO, Sigma 300 F4 APO Macro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffcalhoun Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <P> 1. Search the archives on this site. There is a lot of information on, at least, 3 or more of the lenses that you mentioned. <P> 2. It would help to know your primary purpose for this lens. <P> The Canon 300mm f4L is an excellent quality lens. Outstanding image quality at a great price, and a great "all around" lens. You can use it for wildlife, but it will be too "short" for most birds. You can use it for scenics to isolate certain parts, and it works very well for close-ups using the 500D closeup lens. <P> The image quality on the Canon 100-300 f5.6L will not be as good as the 300 f4L, and you lose a little bit of speed, but you gain some versatility with the zoom. And, many professionals have used this lens to publish great quality images, so its image quality is NOT shabby by any means. <P> Again, do a search in the archives for more information. And, good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_coykendall Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Ditto on the Canon 300 F4L. I bought a used one and have had excellent results. It also works very well with the Canon 1.4x telconverter. However for small birds you will need more power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_de_bruyn Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 High I�m using a 100-400 mm Canon IS for the moment which give me very good results, probably not so good than my fix focus 500mm but the ease to use it is a very great advantage ( not heavy and the ease of using a zoom )But this lens will cost about 2000 $Another zoom to consider is the new Sigma 50-500 mm AF USM, most tests that I so here in Europe ( Foto creatif = Germain, Focus = Netherlands ) claim that the results are very goodThe price will be around 1000 $A lot of good is pretended about the 400 5.6 Canon but the 300 F4 will be much better and has the advantage of IS ( certainly when used with a TC )It will give you a 420 mm F5.6 with the 1.4 TC : you will be able to use speeds going down to 1/ 100 handheld About Tokina the 300 F2.8 seems very good and F 2.8 !!! , the others are ??? I don�t know�.But for birds you will need a strong tele and then the Tokina 300 mm F2.8 ore Canon 300 mm F4 IS together with a good TC will be necessary. The Sigma 50-500 is another option if you will be able to work on a tripod all the time ( certainly in poorer light conditions and if you will like to stop down ) Hope helping you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jd_orion Posted August 30, 2000 Author Share Posted August 30, 2000 I wanted to use it for shooting large animals such as moose. I would buy a teleconverter to match the lens for shooting birds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bliorg Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Of the choices you list, I think I'd go for a 300/4 (Canon or Sigma) and <i>matched</i> TCs. Personally, I don't think the technology for the wide-range 50-500, etc, zooms is there yet. If you can swing it, the IS lenses would be worth playing with, too. I've heard mixed reviews (and don't have the wherewithall to pop for one...), but technique is a huge part of sharpness with long lenses, and any advantage would be worth trying.<p>I also take issue with the 'pretended' comment re: 400/5.6 lenses. When shopping for a long lens for some wildlife and closeup work, I ended up with the Sigma 400/5.6 HSM macro. Does everything that I need, and was well under $1000. I'd rather have a 400/5.6 prime than a 300/4 with 1.4 TC any day. But, ultimately, <i>you</i> have to make that decision for yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former P.N Member Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 You might also take a look at the Sigma 170-500. Compared to the Sigma 50-500 it's about US$350 less, smaller and lighter. 100mm (25%) longer than the 400mm lenses you're considering and only 1/3 stop slower than the f5.6 lenses or f4 lenses + 1.4 TC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erick_lamontagne Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 I wouldn't buy a telephoto lens that is slower than f4. If you need those extra millimeters, add a TC14 on a 300/4 and you'll get good result. Check the classifieds, a 300/4 IS sells for about 1000$, you'll get IS and it focuses down just under 5 feet, which is great for close-up of small critters and birds around feeders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jd_orion Posted August 30, 2000 Author Share Posted August 30, 2000 OK, I don't expect anyone to come back to read this thread but I'll post this question anyway. My choices now are: Canon 300 F4L, Tokina 300 F4, Tokina 100-300 F4, Tokina 400 F5.6. I would really like some input on the Tokina 100-300 though if possible. I know there aren't many owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_de_bruyn Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 A little help, for so far the results here are objective is the following site http://www.photozone.de/ About Sigma About the 170-500 I , don�t know if the quality will be so good Again about the 50-500 : the test results seem to make it a little wonder in its range and price, not to compare with a fix focus but you never know Look also to http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000qS0&topic_id=34&topic=Nature%20Photography http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000PpB&topic_id=34&topic=Nature%20Photography http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0007J5&topic_id=34&topic=Nature%20Photography The AF speed is also something you should think about and there the most Canon lenses will be quicker than sigma zooms ( I�m making a lot of birds in flight photography ). See also Bob Atkins reviews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erick_lamontagne Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Hi JD, Sorry for insisting but I read you already have a 70-200/2.8. Why would you want a zoom which range overlaps with your 70-200 and then put a TC on it? If you want to photograph birds, you'll always be using the zoom at the long end and it won't be enough. Get yourself a prime and you'll be able to put a TC without losing much quality. I recommand a 300/4 over a 400/5.6 because of the extra stop and versatility but you make the final decision. Have fun and don't get run over by that moose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jd_orion Posted August 30, 2000 Author Share Posted August 30, 2000 Good answer! There are some things I just never think about. Then I'll go with the Tokina, Sigma or Canon 300 F4. Thank You Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_baccus Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 Go with the Canon, preferably the IS version if you can find one used. The ability to handhold it with a 1.4x will be a boon in the field. Even if you buy the non-IS version, the excellent optical characteristics of this lens and the Canon 1.4x (itself expensive, but IMO worth every penny if you care about quality) and the USM motor argue in favor of it over the Tokina. The newer Sigma with the HSM AF might be a reasonable second choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitzroy_hepkins Posted September 5, 2000 Share Posted September 5, 2000 I have the Tokina Atx 400 5.6, with a Canon A2 and Ellan IIe. It's a pretty good cheap lens. My friend have a Sigma HSM 400 5.6, and a Canon A2 and A2e. The Sigma Focus a little faster and the auto focus is more reliable. The image quality is the same to my naked eye. The Sigma is around $400 more than the Tokina. If you get the chance, try both on your camera and see what works for you. One more thing if I had $1000, to spend, I would get the Canon 300F4 and save for a converter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_hawkins Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 Wether you buy a prime lens or a zoom does have something to do with the type of nature photography that you intend to do. If like myself, you intend to photograph wild and dangerous animals (African wildlife etc) then a zoom is often best as you often find that you have little choice about the distance that you are shooting from and a zoom allows you to compose your picture better. I had limited resources and went with the 175-500 Sigma lens. It seems to produce very good results although I often need to use a 200ASA film because of the aperture limitation of this type of lens. Unless you are a professional, I don't think the slightly lesser image quality obtained from this type of lens is much to worry about when you have a cracking composition.You will also need to use an autofocus system if you intend to photograph animals or you will end up losing about 20-25% of your images due to imperfect focusing. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_hallett1 Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Neil finally made the most important point. JD never states anything but "nature work" which could birds,waterfalls, landscape,reptiles/amphibians,small/large mammals etc. It is critical to mention what he wants to shoot say, 80% of the time to make a decision or ask for an opinion on a lens choice. All the above choices are good but does JD want to submit for publication, hang prints on the wall, give slide shows or just pass prints around at a party? This is important too. If he just wants to be a casual shooter then there are many decent 3rd party lenses out there. If he,s wanting to become a serious shooter then prepare to shell out more money for a decent Canon L lens or two. If he,s in the learning stage get a 3rd party lens and then trade up when and IF he gets serious. There are too many great lenses sitting around, unused in camera bags collecting fungus owned by would -be photographers who never got serious about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now