|
boardcrazzy
Feb 24, 2003, 8:43 PM
Post #1 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 183
|
Anyone have any experience with Canon Lenses? I'm looking to buy a zoom lense. The standard Canon offering is the EF 75-300 F4-5.6 USM. I was also looking at a little better quality lense in the EF 28-200 F3.5-4.5 USM. Has anyone used either of these and what are your comments. Have they been sufficiently fast? I also found a used EF 70-200 F2.8 USM for a decent price, but still way more than a new version of the lenses listed above. Is it worth paying the extra money for the increased speed, or will I notice?
|
|
|
|
|
cyberclimber
Feb 24, 2003, 10:30 PM
Post #2 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 243
|
I only have experience with the 80-200mm, f2.8 lens, but your question as to whether the extra speed is worth the extra money,,,yes and no. How often will you need the extra stop or two? How often will you really shoot the f2.8 wide open? Looked at in this way, probably not enough to justify the extra expense. However, speed isn't the whole story. The f2.8 lense is considered a professional grade lense as opposed to the consumer grade variable f-stop lenses you mentioned. The 80-200mm, f2.8 lense is very sharp, even wide open it is sharper than the other lenses at f5.6 or f8. The professional grade lenses are also built more ruggedly. So in this way the 80-200mm, f2.8 lense, although more expensive and with less of a zoom range, is definately worth the extra expense. Personally I would go with the faster lens. Just my opinion, hope it helps. J.C.
|
|
|
|
|
jasona
Feb 24, 2003, 11:25 PM
Post #3 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 207
|
get the fastest glass you can afford. if you can avoid zooms then stick with primes as they are generally cheaper and much sharper and faster. That said all I use are zooms. I find that while shooting it is easier to zoom in 10mm than to say move forward while sitting on a belay ledge or what not. I have the 75-300 4.5/5.6 and it is a decent lense. Nothing spectacular ever shot with it but to be honest I do not use it that frequently. If you can get the 70-200 2.8 get it but keep in mind it is heavy? L lenses are the best and primes are right up there. gotta ask yourself what will you be shooting mostly. I can think of only a very few occasions where I needed a 200+ while climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
boardcrazzy
Feb 25, 2003, 10:40 PM
Post #4 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 183
|
I've been doing a bit more research, and have found that maybe the 70-200 F4.0L USM may be the best route to go. It's price range is still managable ($1000 cdn cheaper) and it is about half the weight of the F2.8 (I'll be taking it hiking and climbing a lot). I've also read some reviews on the 80-200 F2.8L and could probably get a used one at a decent price as they don't make them anymore, but then I don't have the option to use a teleconverter. I've read that the 70-200 F4.0L with a 1.4X teleconverter is still pretty sharp.
Any more comments?
|
|
|
|
|
jasona
Feb 26, 2003, 2:27 AM
Post #5 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 207
|
a wide angle. Especially for climbing. A 16-35 canon would be nice but those of us with less $$$ can still get great results with the 20-35. I just picked it up myself and have been very happy thus far.
one last thing. don't go cheap on the film. that 4 pack of fuji or kodak for $6 may look like a good deal but nothing beats slides for climbing and scenics.
|
|
|
|
|
apollodorus
Feb 26, 2003, 2:38 AM
Post #6 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2002
Posts: 2157
|
I have the 75-300, and it's pretty compact and light for its range. A faster lens would be better, heavier and more expensive, so it just depends on what your priorities are.
|
|
|
|
|
dmon
Mar 5, 2003, 10:52 AM
Post #7 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
Just got me a 75-300 non USM f4. For my money the usm option wasn't really worth it. I usually focus myself, and if I have to use autofocus then non USM is good enough. Then again I have a friend who wanted only the USM because he thinks its worthwhile. Guess you just gotta decide whether fast autofocus is worth the extra cash.
I am happy without.
Duncan
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Mar 5, 2003, 2:30 PM
Post #8 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Although I don't shoot Canon I've found my 70-210 to be a great option, it gives you distance without making you cart around a huge lens. Great range, esp if you can get a short zoom to compliment it later.
One thing you will want to think about is the speed. The faster the lens (lower f-stop #) the more useful it will be to you, esp in low light situations (i.e. - some overhanging crag with the sun behind it).
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Apr 1, 2003, 6:33 AM
Post #9 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
You can also look in to Sigma lenses for canon's they have basically the same lenses maybe 5mm difference each way 70-210 or something and are alot cheaper then the brand name canon's
the glass probly isnt AS good but how picky are you?
i also agree with the other post that said how much do you want to lug around... remember where you're gunna be and how much of a hike is it to get there (have experienced hiking with both my 28-80, 70-210 and rebel2000 body on mult day hike.. gets heavy)
hope you get some good pics tho!
Jake
|
|
|
|
|
boardcrazzy
Apr 1, 2003, 5:43 PM
Post #10 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 183
|
Well, for an update, I got engaged recently and my sweetie bought me the Canon 70-200 F4.0L for an engagement present. Found a store that sells it for 10% above their cost and saved $450 over the highest quote I got. The weight doesn't bother me. I'm a pretty fast hiker, so the weight actually serves to slow me down a bit and give me a better workout when scrambling with the girlfriend. Plus the F4.0 is about half the weight and half the price of the F2.8L. A lot for the extra F stop.
Can't wait to start taking some shots with it. I'm going to try out that Fuji Velvia film as well. Woooooo Hooooooo.
PS Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Sigma lenses have Canon's Ultrasonic motor in them which is pretty darn quiet and fast. I have an Elan II body, so the Ultrasonic motor is important to me.
|
|
|
|
|
stigonrock
Apr 1, 2003, 6:11 PM
Post #11 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2001
Posts: 167
|
My cannon came with a 25 - 80 mm lens.
I bought a 75 - 300mm because I wanted to shoot some wildlife on my travels. I would have prefferred a bigger zoom but I couldn't afford it but it sufficed for my needs with the budget I had. It serves it purpose until I can afford bigger. Its also great for zooming in on climbing shots especially for close ups when your're further away.
Its worth thinking about what sort of photos you want to take, e.g if you're into wildlife shots go for as big a zoom as you can afford. Even 300mm isn't big enough for me.
|
|
|
|
|
boardcrazzy
Apr 1, 2003, 7:33 PM
Post #12 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 183
|
I thought about that, but by buying the 70-200 L series lense, I can get the better quality lense and add a teleconverter to it later. With the 1.4X teleconverter I will get 280mm. Also the L series lense gives me a pretty good wide open F stop at F4.0 at 200mm. Faster for the action photography.
|
|
|
|
|
stigonrock
Apr 1, 2003, 7:44 PM
Post #13 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2001
Posts: 167
|
In reply to: I thought about that, but by buying the 70-200 L series lense, I can get the better quality lense and add a teleconverter to it later. With the 1.4X teleconverter I will get 280mm. Also the L series lense gives me a pretty good wide open F stop at F4.0 at 200mm. Faster for the action photography.
True....
I've never tried a teleconverter, so don't know much about it. Have you any idea if get the same quality with a tele-converter than you would with a bigger zoom?
|
|
|
|
|
boardcrazzy
Apr 1, 2003, 9:53 PM
Post #14 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 183
|
I know that with the 2X teleconverter I will lose one F stop and my autofocus. I haven't really seen anything on quality, except for a review of a lense on Photo.net, where they suggested a 1.4X teleconverter as an option to two expensive lenses. I just went to order a circular polarizer and the guys at the store were quite friendly and knowledgable. Since I'ld like more info on it myself, I will ask when I go pick up the polarizer and let you know.
|
|
|
|
|
stigonrock
Apr 1, 2003, 10:12 PM
Post #15 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2001
Posts: 167
|
In reply to: .......I just went to order a circular polarizer and the guys at the store were quite friendly and knowledgable. Since I'ld like more info on it myself, I will ask when I go pick up the polarizer and let you know.
Cool...Id be really interested to know. Let me know how it goes.
Cheers
Ang
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Apr 3, 2003, 7:12 AM
Post #16 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
AHHHHH the Elan series.. hehe lucky you! they are sweet camera's
tho i love my Rebel 2000 it does everything i need
so in your case.. go with the canon line.. and thats cool you got that sweet of a price... it always pays off to look around for the deals
Jake
|
|
|
|
|
boardcrazzy
Apr 3, 2003, 5:23 PM
Post #17 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 183
|
When I bought the Elan II, I think they just stopped making them, so I got a pretty good deal. There are still some stores out there that have some in stock for a good price.
|
|
|
|
|
willstrickland
Apr 3, 2003, 7:17 PM
Post #18 of 18
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2002
Posts: 51
|
I say this all the time.... check out Sigma lenses!
The quality is on par with canon glass. I've done side by side comparisons (same film, aperature) with my Sigma APO EX HSM lenses and Canon L series stuff. The results: until about a 10x loupe on slides, they are indisinguishable. Even then, the differences are barely discernable. And high end Sigma glass is probably half the price of Canon in most cases.
That said, if I had an extra grand burning a hole in my pocket, I'd be all over the new Canon 24-70 L series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
