Need some lens help

Printable View

  • 02-23-2004, 09:05 PM
    JDub
    Need some lens help
    I'm looking for a lens for my 300D. I am using this camera to shoot XC mountain bike races, runs, adventure races, and other outdoor sporting events. I had looked at the Canon 28 - 135 IS USM lens, but the 3.5 - 5.6 aperature range has me concerned. Also, I wasn't sure the 135 focal length would be enough for me.

    So then I started looking into the Sigma 70 - 200/210 f2.8 lens. Its considerably more expensive, but if it is truly better for what I am going to use it for then I'm probably better off to jut get it. I've never owned/used a Sigma lens, can anyone attest for their overall quality?

    Also, I'd love to hear suggestions about other lenses that I should be considering.

    Thanks in advance.
  • 02-23-2004, 10:21 PM
    Nobbie
    I would recommend Canon's F4 70-200 L, especially for outdoor photography. It focuses fast, is much lighter than the 2.8, and is less expensive. However, if you do plan to use the lens indoors alot you would probably be better off sticking with the Sigma. This Canon lens has some pretty positive reviews and it's MTF rating is excellent.

    I'm presently using it with the 300D shooting indoor basketball; it seems to even perform adequately there. I look forward to taking it outdoors.

    Anyway, you asked for suggestions, so there you go. Good luck!
  • 02-23-2004, 10:33 PM
    kafin8ed
    I have a 10D, a 70-200F2.8L, a couple primes, as well as a 300 f4LIS. I Just added the Canon 17-40 F4 L to my collection and I think it will become my most used lens. I shoot MTB races all year long and as long as I can get in close I'm going to use this lens. The flash (even the on camera one) works pretty darn good if you get on the inside of a turn and shoot the riders going by. I shoot in manual mode at around 1/30 or so at iso 400 and the flash freezes the motion excellently. This lens is also a bunch lighter than the bigger tele zooms. That said I looooove the 70-200 f2.8...I've heard the Sigma is just as if not more sharp so I'm sure it's a great buy.

    Also think about other stuff you might want to shoot. The 17-40 range is better for indoor people photos as well as landscape stuff. Don't let the f4 scare you either. I shoot at iso 200 all the time to make up for it and you can't tell the difference (unless you had two shots at different iso side by side at 100% maybe but not in real life), plus since tthis is a wide angle you can shoot at lower shutter speeds without worry of camera shake. Big apertures are more critical for longer lenses for this reason.
    -Alan
  • 02-23-2004, 10:49 PM
    JDub
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nobbie
    I would recommend Canon's F4 70-200 L, especially for outdoor photography. It focuses fast, is much lighter than the 2.8, and is less expensive. However, if you do plan to use the lens indoors alot you would probably be better off sticking with the Sigma. This Canon lens has some pretty positive reviews and it's MTF rating is excellent.

    I'm presently using it with the 300D shooting indoor basketball; it seems to even perform adequately there. I look forward to taking it outdoors.

    Anyway, you asked for suggestions, so there you go. Good luck!

    You are right, that lens should be considered as well. I actually have looked at that lens a little, but not as much as the other two I listed. I originally had assumed the "L" series lenses were all way out of my budget, but the longer I look the higher my budget seems to get.... :)
  • 02-23-2004, 10:55 PM
    JDub
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kafin8ed
    I have a 10D, a 70-200F2.8L, a couple primes, as well as a 300 f4LIS. I Just added the Canon 17-40 F4 L to my collection and I think it will become my most used lens. I shoot MTB races all year long and as long as I can get in close I'm going to use this lens. The flash (even the on camera one) works pretty darn good if you get on the inside of a turn and shoot the riders going by. I shoot in manual mode at around 1/30 or so at iso 400 and the flash freezes the motion excellently. This lens is also a bunch lighter than the bigger tele zooms. That said I looooove the 70-200 f2.8...I've heard the Sigma is just as if not more sharp so I'm sure it's a great buy.

    Also think about other stuff you might want to shoot. The 17-40 range is better for indoor people photos as well as landscape stuff. Don't let the f4 scare you either. I shoot at iso 200 all the time to make up for it and you can't tell the difference (unless you had two shots at different iso side by side at 100% maybe but not in real life), plus since tthis is a wide angle you can shoot at lower shutter speeds without worry of camera shake. Big apertures are more critical for longer lenses for this reason.
    -Alan
    Good advice. The f4 doesn't worry me a whole lot, but getting a 2.8 wouldn't bother me either.

    I shoot wildlife some, so almost everything I shoot is outdoors. The indoor stuff that I do shoot is just for fun, family type stuff. For that I'll likely just use the kit lens until something comes my way.

    I'd love to find one of the lenses listed here (Sigma 70-200, Canon 70-200f4L) used in good condition, but no one seems to be selling. I guess I just have to keep looking.

    Thanks for all your help, very helpful.
  • 02-24-2004, 12:54 AM
    Ouvinen
    I love my Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM. Cannot say a negative thing about it except the lens flare when shooting to the sun. The color rendition is beautiful and the sharpness is sharp enough for me. I'm not saying it's better than the Canon equivalent. Or even 100% equal. But I don't believe the difference between makes a..difference. Considering the huge gap in the price tags...

    I'd rather go with the Sigma than the slower f/4 Canon. I'm yet to have a lens that's too fast...