quality fast zoom?

Matt

Matt

TPer Emeritus
Messages
22,999
Name
matt
Edit My Images
Yes
As you all know, i have the sigma 70 - 300 but i really want something a little faster, ive been in low light shooting today and its a nightmnare, what options do i have for a fast zoom?
 
Sigma 70-200 f2.8
Retails for approx same price as the canon f4.
 
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG HSM.

Only one problem.... £1700 !!!
 
Matt said:
Sigma 70-200 f2.8
Retails for approx same price as the canon f4.
Click to expand...

Unless you are looking at big money you have very little choice other than the one Matt has already suggested.

The reviews and many personal recommendations around the web single that out as being excellent for both quality and value for money.
 
thanks chaps i will look at that, i was trying to work out how much of the 200/300 end i use on the sigma, in good light, it is excellent, but in the woodland or sheltered part of a zoo i really needed a tripod or monopod, neither of which i had on me, but with the animals being as they are they wouldnt have stayed still long enough anyway
 
I'm soooo glad this isn't a 'I've got a bag full of Canon L glass...your gear is rubbish' forum :stir:

My first lens was the Canon EF75-300 USM.

I thought it was a reasonable price and took a little getting used to being used to a diddy silver camera that fits in my pocket...the end lassood all over the place first time I tried it :icon_eek:
 
Bachs said:
I'm soooo glad this isn't a 'I've got a bag full of Canon L glass...your gear is rubbish' forum :stir:

My first lens was the Canon EF75-300 USM.

I thought it was a reasonable price and took a little getting used to being used to a diddy silver camera that fits in my pocket...the end lassood all over the place first time I tried it :icon_eek:
Click to expand...

We are a friendly bunch! The thing to remember is we all have to start somewhere, and that ethos seems to be instilled in nearly all of us, except maybe Pook!:D :D
 
Bachs said:
I'm soooo glad this isn't a 'I've got a bag full of Canon L glass...your gear is rubbish' forum :stir:

My first lens was the Canon EF75-300 USM.

I thought it was a reasonable price and took a little getting used to being used to a diddy silver camera that fits in my pocket...the end lassood all over the place first time I tried it :icon_eek:
Click to expand...

MY first lenses were the 28-80 USM and 75-300 Mk3 USM got them as a kit with the EOS50E, and used them to start with the 20d as well ! Not bad lenses really ! specially when you consider the prices ! :D
 
You can buy some very good glass for very little money and while some of the members here use the excellent Canon L glass they also appreciate a bargain and understand that not everyone can afford the top prices that are often associated with this glass.

Some of the best glass can be had for very little money, the Canon 50mm F1.8 can be bought for a little under £60 and is widely regarded as one of the sharpest lenses currently available.

The Tamron 28-75f2.8 XrDi IF is also another gem of a lens, covering a very useful range and costing around £270 this on a modern DSLR will return excellent results. It’s also available in other fits than Canon, so the Nikon users can also take advantage of it.
 
I would love to own some L lenses... I just can't afford them :p

It makes sense to go for the very best you can afford.
Might be a dubious move but I actually went for the 350D instead of the 20D to free some money up for lens purchases and I can obviously move the lenses across if I ever rob a bank :naughty:
 
The beauty of L glass is that its quality is dependable, the optics are supurb and it will retain much of its re-sale value in the unlikely even that you would want to sell it on in the future.

Some of it is also very reasonable to buy..70-200L F4 for a shade over £400 is a very good first step in to L glass ownership :)
 
Steve said:
Some of it is also very reasonable to buy..70-200L F4 for a shade over £400 is a very good first step in to L glass ownership :)
Click to expand...

Ill second that ! that 70-200 of yours is tops Steve ! Must resist ! my bank balance wont take it !

I think next on my list would be the Tamron 28-75 !
 
IanC_UK said:
Ill second that ! that 70-200 of yours is tops Steve ! Must resist ! my bank balance wont take it !

I think next on my list would be the Tamron 28-75 !
Click to expand...

I'll swop you my 70-200 for that cheap 100-400 ;)
 
This thread is turning into a L lens envy feast. :)

Now come on people, remember its the person behind the camera that makes this pictures ;)
 
Sure is :woot:

I think one of the beauties of the canon system is the fact that there are some very good lenses which don't carry the L badge but are excellent quality and very reasonably priced.

I had intended selling my 28-105 F3.5-4.5 (?) but it's just too good to part with.
 
IanC_UK said:
Yeah and who can forget the dependable 50mm F1.8 II as well ! Not a L series lens, but bang for buck is unbeatable ! :)
Click to expand...

Nobody that has read this thread as thats the second time it has been mentioned ;)

Dod I am not familiar with that lens so unable to offer you an informed reply. If you did sell it what would you be using to cover that range? I am a bit like you, I have the excellent Tamron 28-75 which I absolutely love but it has not been on my camera in almost a year now as I have other lenses that cover its range.

The problem is that its simply to good to sell.
 
Steve said:
snip
Dod I am not familiar with that lens so unable to offer you an informed reply. If you did sell it what would you be using to cover that range? I am a bit like you, I have the excellent Tamron 28-75 which I absolutely love but it has not been on my camera in almost a year now as I have other lenses that cover its range.
snip
Click to expand...

hope this link works Steve

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=206&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

Right now I'm sitting with a 17-40, a 50mm Mk1, a 70-200 and the 28-105 for normal stuff. Out of that I use the 17-40 and 70-200 almost exclusively, the only reason I have the 50mm is because I found it on an EOS 620 at a boot sale for £30 :D I suppose I'm one of the few who wouldn't recommend the 50mm F1.8 (Mk1 or 2), it may be sharp but there's very little I shoot where it's useful. I've already sold one and this one will be going soon too. My ideal lens would be something like a 17-100, I almost went for the 17-85 but the EFS mount put me off.

If I don't have the framing I want in camera with those I'll either move closer or crop it in PS.
 
I have the 50mm 1.4 and I wouldn't part with it, but the 1.6 crop factor seriously cuts down down the field of view compared to what it would be on a 1:1 camera, which limits it somewhat in confined low light situations where I'd mostly prefer to use it.
 
Dod, you and I have almost the same lens selection apart from you owning a 50mm mk1 where mine is a mk2 and I have the Tamron 28-75 instead of your Canon 28-105.

I almost exclusively use the three Canon lenses as they cover the range that I shoot in. the Tamron was my first purchase and starter lens that I paired to the 10D many months ago. I would still not hesitate to use it though if the situation required, quality wise it never gives me anything to worrry about. :)
 
Steve said:
Dod, you and I have almost the same lens selection apart from you owning a 50mm mk1 where mine is a mk2 and I have the Tamron 28-75 instead of your Canon 28-105.

I almost exclusively use the three Canon lenses as they cover the range that I shoot in. the Tamron was my first purchase and starter lens that I paired to the 10D many months ago. I would still not hesitate to use it though if the situation required, quality wise it never gives me anything to worrry about. :)
Click to expand...

I'm rather partial to Tamron lenses, they've always been of a high quality and reasonably priced and the wide angle zoom was the other on my short list before getting the 17-40. The shorter "long" end went against it in the end.

I made a mistake with the 70-200, even before I bought it I knew that realistically I needed something a bit longer. However if I go to the likes of the 100-400 or the sigma 100-300 F4 which looks like a bargain, I'll be left with a bit of a gap as I wouldn't keep the 70-200 as well, I'm not sentimental about kit. Ah well, it's fun looking :eyesup:

I can't believe the hype of the 50mm Mk1. I've used both and I far prefer the Mk2. Quieter, lighter and just as sharp as the Mk1. As I said it's an accident I have one in the bag at all nowadays ;)
 
dod said:
I'm rather partial to Tamron lenses, they've always been of a high quality and reasonably priced and the wide angle zoom was the other on my short list before getting the 17-40. The shorter "long" end went against it in the end.
Click to expand...

I agree totally, if the Tamron 17-35f2.8 had been available when I bought my Canon 17-40L I would have bought that instead. I knew the pedigree of that range of lens due to me already owning the 28-75 version and the faster F2.8 was appealing.

dod said:
I made a mistake with the 70-200, even before I bought it I knew that realistically I needed something a bit longer. However if I go to the likes of the 100-400 or the sigma 100-300 F4 which looks like a bargain, I'll be left with a bit of a gap as I wouldn't keep the 70-200 as well, I'm not sentimental about kit. Ah well, it's fun looking :eyesup:
Click to expand...

Here we differ, I looked at 100-400L and decided I really couldn't get use to the push/pull zoom, the Sigma offerings didn't do anything for me personally and Canon 70-200L was and still is an absolute gem of a lens at a steal of a price. I changed from a Canon 75-300IS to the L lens after much thought and sole searching, later adding in a 1.4X converter to give me back the range I had lost but with much better optics and quality. I don't miss the extra speed of the f2.8 version as my photography doesn't demand that and for the few occasions it does I just increase the ISO on the 20D and run the results through a noise filter if required.

dod said:
I can't believe the hype of the 50mm Mk1. I've used both and I far prefer the Mk2. Quieter, lighter and just as sharp as the Mk1. As I said it's an accident I have one in the bag at all nowadays ;)
Click to expand...

I have read all the hype but as the mk1 is generally not available and the usual cost when it is, is far more I just researched the mk11. I find that it’s a totally dependable lens with very predictable results. It’s also a great lens for teaching discipline. No zoom makes you work and think to get the shots you are after but when you get it right, the quality can leave you breathless.
 
Steve said:
Here we differ, I looked at 100-400L and decided I really couldn't get use to the push/pull zoom, the Sigma offerings didn't do anything for me personally and Canon 70-200L was and still is an absolute gem of a lens at a steal of a price. I changed from a Canon 75-300IS to the L lens after much thought and sole searching, later adding in a 1.4X converter to give me back the range I had lost but with much better optics and quality. I don't miss the extra speed of the f2.8 version as my photography doesn't demand that and for the few occasions it does I just increase the ISO on the 20D and run the results through a noise filter if required.
Click to expand...

All fair points and in truth I've just ordered the Kenko 1.4X on the strength of some of your results. Right now I've got too many other four legged things extracting money from me to justify another lens. My only concern is the AF speed when it comes to things like motocross but like everything else, if it causes a problem then I can adapt how I shoot.

Sigma isn't normally one of the manufacturers I consider. I had a 70-210mm years ago and it was rubbish and probably clouded my judgement. I do like the look of the 100-300 though, and even moreso the 120-300 F2.8.
 
Sigma have come on leaps and bounds in recent years, particularly since it introduced the EX range. I've got my eye on the 120-300, but i'll have to get a lot of use out of the 100-300 before i 'upgrade'.

Dod, where did you get the kenko, andhow much was it. I've decded to sell my sigma 2x, and get a 1.4x, two stops is too much to lose, and i'll be able to get my AF back.
 
ebay, literally just ordered this morning for £80 inc delivery from HK so there might be an import charge etc to go with it. It's the 300 DG model which appears to be more or less on a par with the canon version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top