Zoom Lens for Rebel XT

[cwright]

Hi, i got alot of good responses a while back when I posted about buying a Digital SLR, so I figured I'd come back here now that i'm ready to buy a new lens.

I would like to start with a good quality zoom lens, probably a 70-200mm, but i'm not sure if I should go for an f/4 or f/2.8 model. The Canon 70-200 f/4 is $550 at B&H, which is pretty decent for an "L" lens I would think. However, I do alot of shooting indoors, so the f/2.8 would be a much better idea. Since both f/2.8 70-200 models from canon are over $1,000 and out of my budget, I found myself looking at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX (http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/from-shopping.asp?id=964589911&rf=dt)

The sigma seems to have very good reviews. I'm still a little bit wary of buying non-Canon lenses, but if the price is right and its good glass, I may go for it.

My other concern was the size and weight of these lenses. The Rebel XT is a small camera... will it be awkward using a lens this large on such a small camera? Will it be manageable when used handheld, or would I have to use it on a tripod all the time?

I'd appreciate it if some of the pros here could give me some advice on the lenses in this range.

Thanks!

[James Philp]

just remember the conversion factor when buying lenses for DSLR. For the Rebel i think it was 1.3 or summit (200mm on 35mm film - 260mm on DSLR)

Edit: personally i'd always go for a manufacturer lens. They are generally built better (well, true for nikon anyway).
What lenes do you have currently?

Edit 2: About the size/weight thing - i shouldn't worry, the large grips on the lens will mean you just carry it by the lens more/take up more weight. Plus you could mount the lens. (The size/build of the rebel was the main thing that made me buy a D70 - it felt a lot tougher and sturdy)

[cwright]

I believe the Rebel XT's conversion factor is 1.6x, making it a 320mm lens.

I know the Canon's have reports of better build quality, but when I see reviews like this (http://www.naturephotographers.net/mg0600-1.html) it makes me think the $1,000 for the Canon f/2.8 isn't worth the extra money

[James Philp]

I believe the Rebel XT's conversion factor is 1.6x, making it a 320mm lens.

I know the Canon's have reports of better build quality, but when I see reviews like this (http://www.naturephotographers.net/mg0600-1.html) it makes me think the $1,000 for the Canon f/2.8 isn't worth the extra money
Whatever you do, go to a shop where you can try out the equipment yourself. There is nothing better and a hands-on experience!

[andrewkendall]

I'd definitely go for the Canon 70-200L 2.8, you'll thank yourself in the long term. Good glass lasts a long time and although non Canon lenses are often as good optically it's the build quality that you really notice. As for size i think you'll be surprised how comfortable the larger lenses look and feel. Click here (http://www.andrewkendall.com/pages/photogallery/picturedisplay.php?id=180&picturenumber=13) for an example :P

[wheezy]

I have a Sigma 70-300 for my digital rebel, and for the price it's a great lens. The auto focus isn't as smart as a canon lens, ie, not as fast, or overshoots the focus and misses it completely, but, it takes awesome pictures, it does a great job, I've never been disappointed with the way the pictures turn out. The lenses are good.....so, for a quick fix on lens for a good price, I think Sigma is great....it's not too bad a dent, so you can still save easily and get that Canon lens later, but for the time being have the mm length you're looking for....I have some pictures posted on my website:

www.unculturedswine.net/wheezy

All the Macros are done with that Sigma Lens, the wider angle done with the 18-55 that came with the Rebel.

[aznsal612]

If I were you I'd go with the L series just because you get a nifty red ring around the lens...ain't that the whole point? ;)

But in all seriousness, a more bulky lens won't necessarily be a bad thing. If it's way too big, obviously, it's less mobile if you're on the go, but more weight can offset camera shake in slower than desirable situations. A little bit of weight wouldn't hurt. :p

[James Philp]

I love the way no-one but me asked what lenses you already have (i did but it was ignored) and what kinda pictures your planning to actually take. Both these things are toppermost when considering a new lens. If you are planning to have a lens for holiday/general use, i'd recommend a lens that goes down to at least 20mm.

I have (nikon):
18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (genuine digital lens)
28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (35 lens so 42-300 effective)
This makes my next lens choice very expensive (like a 12-14 or similar or a long zoom) unless i start getting fixed lenses (like a fisheye).
These two lenses cover me with only slight distortion (a good test for lens distortion is taking a picture of blinds in land./port.) from 18-200.
I am going to have to seriously analyze what kinda pictures i'm likely to take in the future when considering if I wanna spend a ton on a lens like the:
http://www.adorama.com/NK1224AFS.html
or even this:
http://www.adorama.com/NK200400AFSU.html

Look at those prices! Ouch!
Please go to a shop to try out - it will help make your mind up.

[Sca1pel]

I would go for genuine canon, it looks etter. I curently have the 70-200mm 2.8 non IS. I had the IS version but never used the IS so I sold it and got the plane one. I think its actualy a bit sharper.

[cwright]

I love the way no-one but me asked what lenses you already have (i did but it was ignored) and what kinda pictures your planning to actually take.
Sorry James, I didnt see you ask those questions in any of your posts. Right now all I have is the 18-55mm kit lens, and since day one I've wanted a longer zoom lens. I will be shooting both indoor and outdoor. Indoor would be some weddings, high school musicals, etc. Outdoor would be potentially nature shots, landscapes, portraits, etc.

I am by no means a pro, and at this point have no intention of becoming a pro. My business is videography (weddings and events mainly). Photography has always interested me so I finally decided to take the plunge with the Rebel XT. I have been using it recently to take good pictures to use on my DVD covers for the videos I shoot.

I think the 70-200 range is what I need for now, since it is a very useable range and I can always add the 1.4x TC if I need to. I just have a hard time spending so much more for the Canon f/2.8 than the Sigma version when the Sigma is essentially the same lens with reports of similar build quality.

If you look here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102&sort=7&cat=37&page=1) on Fred Miranda, the Sigma 70-200 is getting excellent reviews, with many people who say its up to par with the Canon f/2.8

If I wanted to spend $1,000... I think I would rather buy the Sigma lens and a battery grip for the Rebel, and maybe even squeeze in the Canon 50mm f/1.8. All for the price of the Canon f/2.8 lens.

Now, I have enough money to go for the Canon f/2.8 IS lens even, but since I've just graduated high school, most of that needs to be saved for college. :(

[mcmav37]

The sigma seems to have very good reviews. I'm still a little bit wary of buying non-Canon lenses, but if the price is right and its good glass, I may go for it.

My other concern was the size and weight of these lenses. The Rebel XT is a small camera... will it be awkward using a lens this large on such a small camera? Will it be manageable when used handheld, or would I have to use it on a tripod all the time?

I'd appreciate it if some of the pros here could give me some advice on the lenses in this range.

Thanks!


First off, I'm by no means a pro, so take this all with a grain of salt. I currently have the 20D and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 you are referring to (although I have used that lens with the original DRebel too) and am very happy with them. I haven't used the lens as much as I would like to, but I think it is awesome... especially for the price.

The lens is definitely big. I have taken almost all of my shots handheld, but if I were to be carrying it around all day, my arm would get tired (and I'm not comfortable hanging $2000+ of electronics just around my neck). The one day I used my tripod, I was pleased to find out that you can unhook the tripod collar to be able to take the lens out and leave the tripod collar on the tripod for easy re-loading.

Like others are recommending, I would say try to go a big store to hold and try the lenses you are interested in. I went to a local Wolf superstore just to be able to hold the Sigma so I wasn't completely surprised by the weight when I got it.

[James Philp]

Sorry James, I didnt see you ask those questions in any of your posts.

Sorry, realized that there are 2 very similar threads on this right now - getting :confused: !
Right now all I have is the 18-55mm kit lens, and since day one I've wanted a longer zoom lens. I will be shooting both indoor and outdoor. Indoor would be some weddings, high school musicals, etc. Outdoor would be potentially nature shots, landscapes, portraits, etc.
...
I think the 70-200 range is what I need for now, since it is a very useable range and I can always add the 1.4x TC if I need to. I just have a hard time spending so much more for the Canon f/2.8 than the Sigma version when the Sigma is essentially the same lens with reports of similar build quality.

Cool, but remember the 70mm is actually a 112mm and (I think) the kit lens focal lengths are REAL digital, So you'd effectually be MISSING the 55-112 range, which is EXTREMELY useful for indoor shots where there is a large room (wedding, big event etc).
(Even if it's not a digital focal length you're still missing the 88-112mm range)
I like to have a slight overlap with my lenses - that way you will change them less often. My 18-70mm (actual digital range) is great for indoors.
Changing lenses on a DSLR is crucial - read this if you haven't already:
http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/ccd_cleaning

[cwright]

Apparently, just yesterday Sigma announced a new version of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens I was considering. They say this one is optimized for digital SLRs. Here (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05052003sigma_70-200mm.asp) is the link to the story on dpreview.com

I don't know much about the technical aspects of lenses, so could someone please tell me how this new model will be different/better than the one currently on the market?

Thanks

[kbonnel]

If you are going to do a lot of indoors shooting (as you say) I would go for the 2.8 version of the Canon 70-200. If you don't feel you can pay the money, then go for the new Sigma 70-200 2.8 with the HSM. HOWEVER, Canon cameras produce super pictures at higher ISO, so I would play around with the 70-200 F4L and bump up the ISO to see if that works for ya. The weight and cost savings may be what you are looking for.

I have 1 sigma lens, the 24-70 EX, and it is fantastic. The build it super and the pictures are great.

I also have the Canon 70-200 F4L and the Canon 17-40 F4L, both are super lenses.

If you are really interested in learning more about your camera and taking a lot of pictures I would go for a lens that you will use a lot. I use my 70-200 maybe 20% of the time, and the 24-70 75% of the time. The 17-40 usually comes out to play when I am doing landscape work.

Kimo

[kbonnel]

Oh, and if you have big hands like me, I would suggest the battery grip. I find that using the 70-200 with the grip is really nice. I thinkt he XT is a little small for me, and a grip would be a must.

Kimo

[cwright]

thanks for the info. I'm going up to my local camera shop today to try them out.

I've been looking at the battery grip also, and I would like to buy one... but thats even more money added to an expensive lens. Hopefully the store will have one of the grips also that I can try out.

Also, I know that these expensive lenses tend to last forever, and hold their value extremely well. Does this only apply to Canon lenses? or would the Sigma 70-200 hold it's resale value just as well if I decide to go that route?

[iGary]

The 70-200 L is the best buy for your budget.

Spend the extra dollars.

If you think you will find yourself using the long end ofthe spectrum all the time, why not go for the 400mm prime?

[javiercr]

If you're going to go to tibet and spend a month chasing wild yaks for National geographic then you need the build quality of canon L lenses (but then you would't get a Rebel!...or a digital camera), if you're going to print your pictures bigger than A3 then think of buying the canon with for that little 2% improvement, if not the sigma will do fine.

Sigma just came out with a new 80-200 which they claim is optimized for digital (although it sounds marketing to me) http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05052003sigma_70-200mm.asp

of course i'd ultimatly recomend a nikon, but that's a whole new argument :)

[cwright]

If you're going to go to tibet and spend a month chasing wild yaks for National geographic then you need the build quality of canon L lenses (but then you would't get a Rebel!...or a digital camera), if you're going to print your pictures bigger than A3 then think of buying the canon with for that little 2% improvement, if not the sigma will do fine.
Sigma just came out with a new 80-200 which they claim is optimized for digital (although it sounds marketing to me) http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05052003sigma_70-200mm.asp
Yea i saw that new Sigma lens, thats what I was asking about earleir. I'm not quite sure how the new model is different. What does the DG stand for?

And you're right, according to your post, I don't need the build quality of the Canon L lenses. Right now I'm just a hobbyist, but i would rather buy a nice lens now than a cheap consumer lens that will need to be replaced quickly. I plan on shooting lots of indoor sports and other indoor events (think yearbook and newspaper staff in college, and other events this summer), so I really think I'll be dissapointed with the Canon 70-200 f/4. So the decision really comes down to the Sigma 70-200 or the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. The Canon's build quality may be a bit better, but the Sigma is $350 cheaper, which would allow me to get the battery grip as well.

But like I said, I'm going up the local camera shop today to see for myself. My big concern is if it's going to be awkward hand-holding such a big lens on a camera as small as the Rebel XT.

[Willy S]

I would go for the Sigma if you want a bargain. The L might be a little better, but I don´t think you will feel a difference in the photos. You can´t go wrong with either.

I own a Nikon D70 and 80-200 F2.8 and I love that lens. The Sigma is said to be very similar so I cannot imagine how you could be sorry with it.

And I think this Sigma hold its value pretty well, at least I didn´t find any cheap ones at ebay.

[rasp]

Cool, but remember the 70mm is actually a 112mm and (I think) the kit lens focal lengths are REAL digital, So you'd effectually be MISSING the 55-112 range, which is EXTREMELY useful for indoor shots where there is a large room (wedding, big event etc).
(Even if it's not a digital focal length you're still missing the 88-112mm range)
I like to have a slight overlap with my lenses - that way you will change them less often. My 18-70mm (actual digital range) is great for indoors.
Changing lenses on a DSLR is crucial - read this if you haven't already:
http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/ccd_cleaning

I think you have a slight misunderstanding of focal length, it is what it is, period. 18 is 18. It's just that an 18mm for the smaller format digital projects a smaller image circle. What shows up on the final picture with an 18mm digital lens and an 18mm full frame lens is exactly the same.

So, with a 18-55 and a 70-200 the missing FL would be between 55 and 70, really I hardly ever use that FL on my rebel, but it's something each shooter needs to learn for themselves what they shoot.

As for what lens to buy, I agree with all who have said to go to a big store and try lenses. dimensions and weight and spec really don't mean as much to me as actually using the lens.

As for cleaning, I haven't cleaned mine yet, don't worry about it until it starts showing up on photos, most (all?) of the noise will average out in post processing

PS: for all who want to learn about photography a great book to start with is by Ansel Adams, called The Camera Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0821221841/qid=1116857340/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2534141-1340918?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

[cwright]

well I just got back from a trip to the local Wolf Camera, and it was a complete waste of time.

They did not have any 70-200mm zooms in stock at all. He said they can order them for me, and when i asked what they charged, he looked it up in a B&H catalog, and then added $30 to their list price... wtf? :confused:

He also didnt believe me that canon also made an f/4 70-200mm, until he looked it up at B&H. So after all of this he just tried to sell me a Quantary 28-200 zoom :rolleyes:

So... it looks like I'll have to order one without trying it first. If I buy from Adorama, are they easy to do returns if I so choose?

[javiercr]

Yea i saw that new Sigma lens, thats what I was asking about earleir. I'm not quite sure how the new model is different. What does the DG stand for?


you can see what all the sigma codes mean here:
http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/index.htm

DG:
These are large-aperture lenses with wide angles and short minimum focusing distances. With an abundance of peripheral illumination, they are ideal lenses for Digital SLR Cameras whilst retaining suitability for traditional 35mm SLRs.


the good thing about digital is that you can go to the shop , take pictues with both and then compate the quality on your computer the same day...and then buy the day after, and if you don't want to be nice to your local shop (which you should) you can buy from adorama.com or bhphoto.com

[javiercr]

well I just got back from a trip to the local Wolf Camera, and it was a complete waste of time.

They did not have any 70-200mm zooms in stock at all. He said they can order them for me, and when i asked what they charged, he looked it up in a B&H catalog, and then added $30 to their list price... wtf? :confused:

He also didnt believe me that canon also made an f/4 70-200mm, until he looked it up at B&H. So after all of this he just tried to sell me a Quantary 28-200 zoom :rolleyes:

So... it looks like I'll have to order one without trying it first. If I buy from Adorama, are they easy to do returns if I so choose?

There must be another camera shop somewhere where you can try one. I never had to return anything to Adorama but i'm sure you'll have to pay some of the shipping costs one way or another.

Don't ever buy Quantary lens!

[cwright]

There is another camera shop that may have them. Its about 30 minutes away though... might not be able to get down there untill next week.

Anyway, regardless of which lens I buy, should I get a UV filter that's multi-coated, or does it matter?

[kbonnel]

I would order from canogacamera.com. They are a great shop in California, and their shipping costs are much better (fair) than b&h and adorama.

As for filters, this is another "fun" topic to talk about. I use them (Hoya super UVs) on all of my lenses, and I feel they do add something to my photos (only good, not bad :) ), and they protect the front element of my lenses. If you want to use filters, do not go cheap. If you are about to spend 1k on a lens, don't put a 15 dollar filter on it.

Kimo

[cwright]

I would order from canogacamera.com. They are a great shop in California, and their shipping costs are much better (fair) than b&h and adorama.
As for filters, this is another "fun" topic to talk about. I use them (Hoya super UVs) on all of my lenses, and I feel they do add something to my photos (only good, not bad :) ), and they protect the front element of my lenses. If you want to use filters, do not go cheap. If you are about to spend 1k on a lens, don't put a 15 dollar filter on it.
Thanks for the tip on the canogacamera store, but it's still more expensive than Adorama's price. Their list price for this lens is over $100 more expensive than Adorama's, and I doubt their better shipping rates will cover that :)

Now I'm still not sure which UV filter to get. When I search for 77mm UV filters at Adorama, I get 25 different results, with brands from B+W, Sigma, Hoya, Sunpak, Tiffen, and Canon. Does the Sigma 70-200 need a multi-coated UV filter? I'm assuming it does, but please correct me If I'm wrong. Sigma's Multi-Coated filter is $39, while Hoya's is $40 and B+W's is $76.

Please let me know what you think would be the best filter to buy, as I will probably be ordering this early next week.

Thanks!

[Ambrose Chapel]

i have a tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 for my 350D, and i love it.
:)

[kbonnel]

To answer your question if the Sigma 70-200 requires a filter, I would like to say that NO lens REQUIRES a filter. It is a personal preference choice. If you decide that a filter will be beneficial for you, then yes, you want to get multi-coated filters. I would stick with Hoya or B+W filters. They are both top quality builds, with B+W being slightly than Hoya. (but you pay for it). One thing to watch out for is when you see double coated filters. These usually mean single coated on each side, where multi-coated actually has multiple coats on each side.

You can find great prices on filters from 2filters.com or camerafilters.com. I have ordered from both in the past, and the people at 2filters.com are great. I have been using Hoya filters for a very long time, and I have never had any issues with them.

I knew that canogacamera.com was a little more expensive on some lenses, but $100 is major. For that I too would shop at adorama or b&h (which, don't get me wrong, I have and still use). What lens are you talking about? So far the 70-200 has been mentioned (from sigma and canon) and the prices seem to be the same.

Kimo

Thanks for the tip on the canogacamera store, but it's still more expensive than Adorama's price. Their list price for this lens is over $100 more expensive than Adorama's, and I doubt their better shipping rates will cover that :)

Now I'm still not sure which UV filter to get. When I search for 77mm UV filters at Adorama, I get 25 different results, with brands from B+W, Sigma, Hoya, Sunpak, Tiffen, and Canon. Does the Sigma 70-200 need a multi-coated UV filter? I'm assuming it does, but please correct me If I'm wrong. Sigma's Multi-Coated filter is $39, while Hoya's is $40 and B+W's is $76.

Please let me know what you think would be the best filter to buy, as I will probably be ordering this early next week.

Thanks!

[cwright]

I knew that canogacamera.com was a little more expensive on some lenses, but $100 is major. For that I too would shop at adorama or b&h (which, don't get me wrong, I have and still use). What lens are you talking about? So far the 70-200 has been mentioned (from sigma and canon) and the prices seem to be the same.
Sorry I havent been around in awhile... I forgot to keep checking on this thread, and I dont recall getting any email notifications.

Anyway, I ended up purchasing the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 from Sigma4Less.com for a little under $800 including the Hoya Multi-coated filter and the extended 7-year warranty. This is an amazing lens! I'm definitely happy with it... the pictures are incredible! If anyone's interested, I posted some pics over at dpreview... here (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13902800)

So now I have to find a good mid-range zoom :)
I'm eyeing the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 to replace the kit lens since I've been pretty impressed with the sigma quality so far. But who knows, if I win the lottery I may go for the 17-40L instead.

[Plastic Avatar]

Lens filter:

You may want a UV, you may not. Most of the photographers I know use a protection filter for everyday use and have a stock of UV, polarizing, warming, neutral density, etc., filters to use as needed.

I prefer Hoya, if you can afford it, for the multi-coated protection filter. Yes, the multicoated filters are worth getting. If it's good enough for your lens, it's good enough for your filter.

I'm going to have to go with a cheaper brand for my selection of modification filters, but I like Hoya's stuff when I can afford it.

Lens brand/type:

Yes. Brand lenses are nice.

Yes. Brand lenses are overpriced.

Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma all make professional and pro-sumer quality lenses that perform just as good as or damn close to their brand name equivalents- at a fraction of the cost. There is great glass out there, and it doesn't have to come from Canon or Nikon.

For the price of one constant aperture brand name lens, you can get 2 lenses from another source. 2 *great* lenses, with constant apertures just like the brand name ones.

Film or digital lenses:

I suggest going with a film camera lens when you can. This is my personal take, mind you. It gives you flexibility in case you move to a full-frame sensor Canon later, or decide to use your lens on a 35mm body.

In addition, because of the 1.6x crop, you'll benefit in another way by using a film-based lens- your Canon will only be using the sharpest part of the lens for image information (the center). The edges of a film lens are essentially cropped out with a smaller than full-frame sensor, and the edges usually are softer than the center.

'Course, you don't have much of a choice but to use a digital-specific lens for your wide-angle end. I've seen incredible results from the Tokina 12-24 f4. Being in the $500 range, it's a great bargain and a well-built, quality lens.

What I use:

As my walkabout lens I use the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, and I love it. At $370, it just can't be beat for quality and versatility. The constant 2.8 comes in handy, since I love blurring out my backgrounds (and the bokeh with this lens is buttery smooth and quite pleasing).... bokeh is a Japanese word describing the quality of background blur, if I understand correctly.

Reference site:

dpreview.com/forums

Look, read, learn. Great resource, great people.

You can find out a lot at this site.

[Plastic Avatar]

Anyway, I ended up purchasing the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 from Sigma4Less.com for a little under $800 including the Hoya Multi-coated filter and the extended 7-year warranty. This is an amazing lens! I'm definitely happy with it... the pictures are incredible! If anyone's interested, I posted some pics over at dpreview... here (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13902800)

So now I have to find a good mid-range zoom :)
I'm eyeing the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 to replace the kit lens since I've been pretty impressed with the sigma quality so far. But who knows, if I win the lottery I may go for the 17-40L instead.

That's great =)

I'm looking at the 70-200 Sigma, too. The sigma4less guys are pretty good to order from, from what I've heard.

I see you already know about dpreview, as well =)

As for your mid-range zoom.... I was going to go Sigma, but I ended up liking the Tamron better. Just make sure you get the new Sigma 24-70 and not last year's model. I hear there is an image quality difference.

My set of lenses will eventually consist of: Tokina 12-24 f4, my current Tamron 28-75 f2.8, and probably the 70-200 Sigma you bought. If I had the money, I'd get the 70-200 Nikon f2.8 VR, but that looks like a long shot right now- too many other expenses.

Enjoy your new camera =)

[jared_kipe]

Sheesh, Dissapointed by the Canon 70-200mm f/4, wide open thats the sharpest lens I've ever seen (no joke, I've seen comparisons at f/4 its really really sharp- thing about the f/2.8 is that you'll have to stop it down to 4.5 to even get great sharpness). I would have a tough time saying you need the extra stop that the f/2.8 provides. Unless you're gonna get the 2.8 IS when you'll have a 4 stop advantage.
Plus its so much cheaper, and the zoom knob goes in the "right" direction for us canon users, the sigma's doesn't. If you have to have f/2.8 get the Sigma.
The f/2.8 is fudging huge for adding 1 stop of light http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

As a side note, I'm very disappointed in sigma's lack of putting HSM on their awesome zooms like the 18-50 f/2.8 which is one of the sharpest zooms on the face of the earth, the the 24-70mm or 24-60mm f/2.8 s, 28-70mm f/2.8 or the 28-135mm f/2.8-4.5. I just can't believe how they don't put USM on these. Same goes from Tamron and Tokina, they have some really superior zooms with f/2.8 but no USM/HSM. I for one am not going to buy a lens anytime soon that doesn't have USM/HSM.

[jared_kipe]

That's great =)

As for your mid-range zoom.... I was going to go Sigma, but I ended up liking the Tamron better. Just make sure you get the new Sigma 24-70 and not last year's model. I hear there is an image quality difference.


No kidding, same with Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8L over their old 28-70mmL, the difference is staggering. Side by side you wonder how the 28-70 was considered an L lens.

[cwright]

Sheesh, Dissapointed by the Canon 70-200mm f/4, wide open thats the sharpest lens I've ever seen...
Maybe that didn't come out right... I know the 70-200 f/4 is an an amazing lens and probably sharper at f/4 than the Sigma is, but this last week I used the f/2.8 almost exclusively for alot of indoor shots so I was able to get much better shutter speeds than I would have with the f/4. And I'm sure the f/2.8 will be nice when I start shooting sports in the fall.

Besides, when you consider that the lens hood and tripod collar which are expensive extras on the canon f/4 are included with sigma's f/2.8, they're about the same price. And with the battery grip on the XT, I can manage holding the sigma without any issues.

edit: typo

[Chip NoVaMac]

Whatever you do, go to a shop where you can try out the equipment yourself. There is nothing better and a hands-on experience!

Just remember to buy from that shop. You have to pay for that hands-on experience.

They may want to see if the have Try-And-Buy program. Our shop rents lots of recent products, and gives half of the rental fee back towards the purchase.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Sorry James, I didnt see you ask those questions in any of your posts. Right now all I have is the 18-55mm kit lens, and since day one I've wanted a longer zoom lens. I will be shooting both indoor and outdoor. Indoor would be some weddings, high school musicals, etc. Outdoor would be potentially nature shots, landscapes, portraits, etc.

You might find going with the 17-85IS from Canon a better choice. It covers a field of view of 28-135 in 35mm terms. And from what you listed, it seems a good match for your needs. It would give a better lens than the kit lens, which some say are real dogs.

I think the 70-200 range is what I need for now, since it is a very useable range and I can always add the 1.4x TC if I need to. I just have a hard time spending so much more for the Canon f/2.8 than the Sigma version when the Sigma is essentially the same lens with reports of similar build quality.

That is quite a jump in field of view from your kit lens to the intended tele zoom. Many users prefer an overlap, so as to limit lens swapping. In regards to Sigma. They and other third party lens makers have some nice glass. The only issue historically with Sigma is that the Canon mount lenses from them may have to be sent back to them, to have a new chip installed - IF canon makes subtle changes in their next body.

EDIT: You may want to wait till the end of the year. Rumblings are that we may see a 50-150 digital specific zooms from a number of lens makers with 2.8 apertures. This would equal a field of view of 70-210 for most digital cameras. Sigma already makes a 18-50 w/2.8.

[jared_kipe]

You might find going with the 17-85IS from Canon a better choice. It covers a field of view of 28-135 in 35mm terms. And from what you listed, it seems a good match for your needs. It would give a better lens than the kit lens, which some say are real dogs.



That is quite a jump in field of view from your kit lens to the intended tele zoom. Many users prefer an overlap, so as to limit lens swapping. In regards to Sigma. They and other third party lens makers have some nice glass. The only issue historically with Sigma is that the Canon mount lenses from them may have to be sent back to them, to have a new chip installed - IF canon makes subtle changes in their next body.

EDIT: You may want to wait till the end of the year. Rumblings are that we may see a 50-150 digital specific zooms from a number of lens makers with 2.8 apertures. This would equal a field of view of 70-210 for most digital cameras. Sigma already makes a 18-50 w/2.8.

Whats the point? There is no need for short back focus or anything on tele lenses. I think there is more need for better 100-300mm other than the amazing sigma 12-300mm f/4 HSM. Need LONGER range not shorter digital only. In fact the only reason IMHO to get a 70-200mm f/2.8 is to use a TC to get it near that magical 300mm mark at f/4 and at the 400mm mark at f/5.6. But you'll have problems with sharpness and contrast with any 2x TC. And here we have the dilemma of the canon 100-400mm f/?-5.6L IS USM, from everything I've read you need to stop down to f/8 to get good sharpness, and I find that to be absolutely boring in a L lens. Thinking back to that 70-200mm f/4L canon , that beast is SHARP at f/4 and only gets a little tiny bit better. We need more lenses like that.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Whats the point? There is no need for short back focus or anything on tele lenses. I think there is more need for better 100-300mm other than the amazing sigma 12-300mm f/4 HSM. Need LONGER range not shorter digital only. In fact the only reason IMHO to get a 70-200mm f/2.8 is to use a TC to get it near that magical 300mm mark at f/4 and at the 400mm mark at f/5.6. But you'll have problems with sharpness and contrast with any 2x TC. And here we have the dilemma of the canon 100-400mm f/?-5.6L IS USM, from everything I've read you need to stop down to f/8 to get good sharpness, and I find that to be absolutely boring in a L lens. Thinking back to that 70-200mm f/4L canon , that beast is SHARP at f/4 and only gets a little tiny bit better. We need more lenses like that.

As consumers we seem be driven by numbers as a deciding factor. In 35mm we had been happy with the idea of 300mm being the max for the average consumer. And 200mm for the sharpness driven consumer.

The rumored lens gives a 200mm field of view. Add to that a good number of people may have problems trying to hold much above that mark. Not too mention, it could be smaller and lighter in weight.

[jared_kipe]

As consumers we seem be driven by numbers as a deciding factor. In 35mm we had been happy with the idea of 300mm being the max for the average consumer. And 200mm for the sharpness driven consumer.

The rumored lens gives a 200mm field of view. Add to that a good number of people may have problems trying to hold much above that mark. Not too mention, it could be smaller and lighter in weight.

But the 200mm field of view is covered by the current 70-200mm on a digital crop camera. We call it 140mm or something, but its the same thing... and we can go out even further to the 320mm mark or so. No matter what zoom I have on, I always find myself wanting a little more zoom out of it. My 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM isn't enough for me (for sharpness and reach), so all that leaves is the 100-400mmL IS USM, which is rediculously expensive. Wouldn't mind at all something like the 70-200mm f/4 to be like a 12-300, or 200-400mm f/4.5 or something. As long as it is sharp out of the gate.

[Chip NoVaMac]

But the 200mm field of view is covered by the current 70-200mm on a digital crop camera. We call it 140mm or something, but its the same thing... and we can go out even further to the 320mm mark or so. No matter what zoom I have on, I always find myself wanting a little more zoom out of it. My 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM isn't enough for me (for sharpness and reach), so all that leaves is the 100-400mmL IS USM, which is rediculously expensive. Wouldn't mind at all something like the 70-200mm f/4 to be like a 12-300, or 200-400mm f/4.5 or something. As long as it is sharp out of the gate.

It is about size and weight, and need. Most do not need more than 200mm field of view. Also the 70-200L lenses are big and heavy, and unless one gets the IS version - camera shake may be an issue.

Just providing some food for thought. Every ones milage may and will vary.
:)

[tuartboy]

My other concern was the size and weight of these lenses. The Rebel XT is a small camera... will it be awkward using a lens this large on such a small camera? Will it be manageable when used handheld, or would I have to use it on a tripod all the time?

Didn't ake the time to read all the other posts, but if it hasn't been said:

Buy the battery grip right now. I have the original rebel with the battery grip and it changes everything. Adds a lot of weight down low so you can put a lot more in front for those bigger lenses. I had a 300mm on there, a bit front heavy, but manageable.

Also, double your battery life and make it look more professional...

[iGary]

My 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM isn't enough for me (for sharpness and reach), so all that leaves is the 100-400mmL IS USM, which is rediculously expensive.

The 100-400L IS USM is a bargain for what you get.