View Full Version : A new lens for Sue
Matt Charlton
02-02-2007, 18:47
I think the time has come to replace the 90-300mm lens that I got Sue as part of her bundle with the 350d.
I'm trying to think about what kind of a lens she would get the most use of and its either going to be a telephoto or something to replace the kit lens.
I still haven't gotten anything to replace my kit lens yet, that comes later ;)
I don't really want to get her a 100-400L - we can't really afford to spend another £850 and she struggled with the weight a little bit when she tried mine out.
I was wondering if anyone had any of the sigma telephoto lenses?
Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG APO Lens (£340)
Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 DG APO Lens (£400)
Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX DG APO HSM Lens (£580)
I think she would just appreciate a little more reach than her current lens gives her.
Alternatively I might get her the 28-135, depends what she would prefer I guess.
I think she would just appreciate a little more reach
I get the picture!! :eek: :naughty::D ;)
The 28-135 IS isn't that great so I would avoid it.
The Bigma 50-500 weighs 1.8kg compared to the Canon 100-400 of 1.3kg, so it's 500g heavier - Probably not a good idea if she struggled with 100-400 :p
I know it's not longer but it'll be sharper than her current lens : Canon 70-300mm IS
Matt Charlton
02-02-2007, 18:55
I get the picture!! :eek: :naughty::D ;)
What do you do with your camera lenses? :p
Matt Charlton
02-02-2007, 18:56
The 28-135 IS isn't that great so I would avoid it.
The Bigma 50-500 weighs 1.8kg compared to the Canon 100-400 of 1.3kg, so it's 500g heavier - Probably not a good idea if she struggled with 100-400 :p
I could always get her a set of weights and then buy her that for her birthday ;)
Oh well, its useful to know, ta sdk ;)
Matt, have a look on Dyxum.com for a comprehensive list of reviewed lenses. Mostly tested on minoltas but Sigmas will mostly be the same on any camera and there are a lot of 3rd party lens test there.
hypnotic
02-02-2007, 19:22
Don't be such a tight ar*e!
Get her the 500 f/4 and carry it around for her :thumbs:
:canon:
busterboy
02-02-2007, 20:20
Don't be such a tight ar*e!
Get her the 500 f/4 and carry it around for her :thumbs:
:canon:
:agree:
Don't be such a tight ar*e!
Get her the 500 f/4 and carry it around for her :thumbs:
:canon:
AND a 2X cannon TeleConv
AND a 1DII to use it on
AND a weeks training course with Andy Rouse (or similar)
Who would do less for thier loved one?
Matt Charlton
02-02-2007, 23:44
nah fixed focal length is no good, she needs something she can move.
nah fixed focal length is no good, she needs something she can move.
Ok ... and a Tesco shopping trolly to trundle it round in
Or a canon 300f4L IS. Nice weight and super sharp and IS to boot. Add a 1.4x and you have a 420mm f5.6. Or as Joe suggests get the Sigma 100-300 f4. Nice lens I hear.
busterboy
03-02-2007, 09:01
Give her the money and let her decide.
You win. She wins. Everybody happy.:thumbs:
King_Boru
03-02-2007, 09:15
I can personally recommend the Sigma 100-300 f4. It really is a superb lens.
Some Samples (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16916)
Sigma 100-300 f4?
There's one for sale in the Classified Ads btw HERE (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16513)
Paul ;)
Matt Charlton
03-02-2007, 10:47
Give her the money and let her decide.
You win. She wins. Everybody happy.:thumbs:
She's already got access to all of the money, and the credit cards.......:thinking:
She's already got access to all of the money, and the credit cards.......:thinking:
Well in that case...I think this thread was just designed to show what a wonderful ,generous, fantastic, husband you are!! ;)
Matt Charlton
03-02-2007, 10:50
Ha yeah I because I need my ego boosting (and my bank balance emptying :p)
Okay, the sigma 100-300 is intesting. Will she still be able to use AF if I get a 1.4x teleconverter to go with it?
does she want to be taking photos of people in ireland? find out what she wants to shoot first tbh
Matt Charlton
03-02-2007, 10:58
The 70-300 canon is also interesting because it has IS. I'm going to try and see how it compares with the sigma.
Matt Charlton
03-02-2007, 10:59
does she want to be taking photos of people in ireland? find out what she wants to shoot first tbh
Animals.
She likes the Zoo's and we've got the Knowsley trip coming up in April.
ok cool at least you've got something to work from now. basics when shotting animals:
fast shutter speed
fast shutter speed
and... fast shutter speed
So you want something with a largeeee aperture, f2.8 is probally the largest you'll get for what you're after. When using TC's the aperture will decrease, so if you went f4 you would only have something like f5.6? not sure cba to do the maths, but as we're coming to summer the light should be suficeint anyway! So.. the you need to work out about reach (for the stars <3 s-club) how far are the animals going to be away? When we went zoo, I was using a 70-200 with a 1.4tc and most things we just about spot on! anyway, that was me just blabaring, and probally spouting what everyone else has already said.
Dan
(macattack!)
Matt Charlton
03-02-2007, 11:10
I had the 90-300 and it didn't give me enough reach - now I have the 100-400 I have spot on reach, the apeture on that isn't the fastest in the world but I don't have another 850 quid to spend on one of them :/
hmmmmzy
you're right about a 4 turning into a 5.6 with a 1.4 btw
I tried the 135-400 when I was looking at the 100-400. To be honest it really wasn't that bad for image quality. AF was a bit slow and noisy though.
Canon 600mm L. One up on CT. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Canon 600mm L. One up on CT. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Already done by IanC! :p
The 100-300 f4 with still AF no probs with a 1.4 tc. :)
Unfortunately getting the Sigma 100-300 f/4 would leave Sue in a worse situation than when she tried the 100-400 since the 100-300 f/4 is slightly heavier and doesn't have IS to help either. Are you sure she has enough need for an xx-300 lens? If not then something like the 70-200 f/4 L (Discounting the IS version as it's roughly the same price as the 100-400) would be a much lighter and therefore more manageable lens. If she does need xx-300 then I think the best compromise is the 70-300 IS.
An alternative to all this talk of telephotos is the fantastic Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX Macro. My wife uses one on her 350D and loves it. Faster focusing and quieter than my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX Macro and just as sharp.
I still think the easiest and best solution is to ask Sue what focal length she would like (apologies if you've already done this :) ) and if she's not sure she can look at her pics and see what the most common focal length used was to help.
Just my 0.02p :D
Matt Charlton
03-02-2007, 22:36
Thanks for the input guys, I asked her again what she wanted out of a new lens and if it was more reach that she wanted and she said it was - I might well get the canon 70-300 IS and get the 1.4x TC and then I can nick that to go on my 100-400 at times too :D
Matt, check mate, because the converters dont fit all lenses !
Matt Charlton
03-02-2007, 22:40
hmmm you could be right, looks like it might be for L glass only
malla1962
04-02-2007, 10:56
I would forget about that sigma 135-400:lol:
Matt Charlton
04-02-2007, 11:27
After chatting to Ian last night it would appear that the only option is to get another 100-400L.
I'll let her have a decent go with mine on Wednesday so she can properly try it out and we'll see where we go from there.
Need to start saving the pennies I think!
hypnotic
04-02-2007, 11:38
Cannot understand the reasoning in getting a duplicate lens.
There must be someting suitable.
Matt Charlton
04-02-2007, 11:42
Its not a duplicate lens though - if we both go out to say Chester Zoo - the 100-400L does not leave my camera, its not a case of us being able to share the lenses.
It's a bugger buying two of the same lens but I can't argue with the logic. The 100-400L never comes off my camera on zoo trips, being ideal for close-up and distance shots. :shrug:
hypnotic
04-02-2007, 11:58
How about the Sigma 170-500 f/5.6-f/6.3?
Gets some good reviews and can be picked up for around £250 on ebay
Cannot understand the reasoning in getting a duplicate lens.
There must be someting suitable.
Thats what i said last night, but after a long conversation we narrowed it down to the 100-400 !
I did suggest a 70-200 and converter so they didnt have 2 lenses the same and could swap and change.
The 170-500 is lighter than the 100-400 by a little,
170-500 - Weight 1,345g/47.4 oz.
100-400 - Weight 1,380g
So that may be an option, but has no IS ?
Hmmm well thanks for all the thoughts and comments guys, will leave the final decision up to matt as he knows more about the lenses than I do, most of the time I seem to have lense at full length and would like that bit more, the only time I have tried the 100-400 was at chester zoo stood for five minutes, and after walking round with my lense all day I did find the 100-400 heavy but then when I first started with the 350 I found that heavy, and I am now used to that.
As for the best lense I arent sure it would be nice to have a new lense and be able to have a bit more length and am happy with the kit lense so no need for something like that. As for 100-400 or 170-500 I dont really know the difference for me, so will leave it up to matt with the help of friends on here to decide as most of you know the type of shots I have taken in the past, and from what I post the sort of thing I enjoy.
Once again thanks for the thoughts everyone.
dont get her one, problem solved :P
Ohhhhh your not helping :)
Ok so if you were buying one of these lenses which would you get and why?
busterboy
04-02-2007, 19:35
I did suggest a 70-200 and converter so they didnt have 2 lenses the same and could swap and change.
The only sensible solution to this by far. You can pick up a brand new 70-200mm F.4L for less than £400 and have a very versatile lens in your armoury.:)
Remember, Matt has already got the 100-400mm and knows Canon L glass will give excellent results.;)
The 70-200 will match its results, Does that help.
sigma 70-200 f2.8 - becuase I have it :)
Love the quality of the shots matt gets, and others that I have seen using that lense.
But I arent sure the 200 would be enough, I use 300 most of the time at the zoo now, and sometime I find that isnt enough, but is that just because I am used to seeing what matt and others can get with the 400???
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.