Yeah it's called a cross type sensor for those keeping track. Also nice SLR's can focus better in the dark, and can focus at f8. SLR's like the 20D not sure about the new rebel XT.Chip NoVaMac said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Which Tele. Lense?
- Thread starter Dark
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A little off-topic, sorry...
I'm renting a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 lens to shoot pictures of a high school musical my sister's in. I've owned the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for about a year before selling it, so I sorta know what to expect from it's big brother.
Last year I took pics of the same high school's musical and was stuck with a 70-300 f/4-5.6 and it was terrible. I was forced to use the flash (ok since it was a parents only pre-show) and the pics still came out a little blurry.
I'm hoping the 120-300 will let me get the pictures I want with more sharpness and no flash. I'm using it with my Digital Rebel XT but I may borrow a 20D for the ISO 3200 capability and faster focusing.
Well to make a point... if the motocross thing is a one-time only event you could always rent a good lens. The 120-300 costs at least $2,000 and I rented it for $55/day.
I'm renting a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 lens to shoot pictures of a high school musical my sister's in. I've owned the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for about a year before selling it, so I sorta know what to expect from it's big brother.
Last year I took pics of the same high school's musical and was stuck with a 70-300 f/4-5.6 and it was terrible. I was forced to use the flash (ok since it was a parents only pre-show) and the pics still came out a little blurry.
I'm hoping the 120-300 will let me get the pictures I want with more sharpness and no flash. I'm using it with my Digital Rebel XT but I may borrow a 20D for the ISO 3200 capability and faster focusing.
Well to make a point... if the motocross thing is a one-time only event you could always rent a good lens. The 120-300 costs at least $2,000 and I rented it for $55/day.
Does anybody here have any experience with the 135 "Soft Focus" lens?
I'm pretty sure that it's non-USM, so I'm interested in hearing about how well it focuses. There's a lot of range in Canon non-USM focusing motors (though I the 70-300 is definately on the better side).
I've also heard that it's a very sharp lens w/o the SF feature turned on.
To the OP: I reccomend that you try out a prime. They're generally excelent in terms of quality, speed, and price, and the expericnce is valuable wether or not you end up with one. Take a few hundred pictures and notice the quality of them compared to when you're working a zoom.
I'm pretty sure that it's non-USM, so I'm interested in hearing about how well it focuses. There's a lot of range in Canon non-USM focusing motors (though I the 70-300 is definately on the better side).
I've also heard that it's a very sharp lens w/o the SF feature turned on.
To the OP: I reccomend that you try out a prime. They're generally excelent in terms of quality, speed, and price, and the expericnce is valuable wether or not you end up with one. Take a few hundred pictures and notice the quality of them compared to when you're working a zoom.
The 135 Soft is a very antiquated lens design. No usm, and even when no soft is on, the lens is only mediocre for a prime.ibilly said:
As for a prime, read up a few posts. There are not many primes in his budget in that range.
EDIT: and as for the 120-300mm f2.8 from the MTF curves I bet that lens is gonna be even better than your 70-200 f2.8.
EDIT2: plus the 135 soft is a portrait lens, and its a little long for that purpose on a DSLR. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_135_28sf/index.htm
Sigma 70-200 2.8
For what it's worth, I can throw in another 'satisfied user' recommendation for the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I can't notice any difference (in reality, not in shooting test patterns) between the Sigma and the f4 and f2.8 70-200 lenses from Canon. And all three are, I think, worlds better than the 'consumer grade' lenses. Going from f4 to f2.8 is a big improvement - helps me get the shot I want, not just the one the lens can do.
Plus, there is an argument to the black Sigma being a lot less noticable for street photography. Nothing like a big piece of white L glass to attract attention to yourself, which isn't always what you want when shooting...
For what it's worth, I can throw in another 'satisfied user' recommendation for the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I can't notice any difference (in reality, not in shooting test patterns) between the Sigma and the f4 and f2.8 70-200 lenses from Canon. And all three are, I think, worlds better than the 'consumer grade' lenses. Going from f4 to f2.8 is a big improvement - helps me get the shot I want, not just the one the lens can do.
Plus, there is an argument to the black Sigma being a lot less noticable for street photography. Nothing like a big piece of white L glass to attract attention to yourself, which isn't always what you want when shooting...
jared_kipe said:
Well, keep in mind that a 200/2.8 will still auto focus with a 2x extender, this may not be the case with the slower lenses depending on the camera.
I bought the Canon 70-200 f/4 because it focuses amazingly fast, is contrasty and resolves fine detail, faithfully transmits color, has fantastic build quality, and is relatively light. If you need a faster zoom, don't want to spring for the faster Canon version, and don't mind a heavier lens, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is highly regarded.
IMO, none of the Canon consumer zooms has the build quality of the 70-200 f/4. No lens I own focuses as fast either. It is truly a pleasure to use this lens.
Here's a photo of a backyard squirrel I took with this lens wide open, ISO 800 on a Rebel XT:
IMO, none of the Canon consumer zooms has the build quality of the 70-200 f/4. No lens I own focuses as fast either. It is truly a pleasure to use this lens.
Here's a photo of a backyard squirrel I took with this lens wide open, ISO 800 on a Rebel XT:
snap58 said:
True but I would be willing to bet that with a 1.4x extender taking it to f4 will probably not be sharper at f4 than the 70-300 at 280 at f5.6. Plus then you have to change your lens all the time allowing you to miss shots and get dust in your camera body. (I have nothing on my sensor, but my mirror and focusing screen gets crap on it all the time, this is the single reason I haven't moved to prime lenses) A 2x is probably out of the question, they really destroy image quality. PLUS the 200mm f2.8 L prime isn't as sharp wide open as lots of prime lenses.
Besides, when talking about lenses like the 70-200mm sigma will focus with 2x or a 1.4x, the 100-300mm sigma will focus with the 1.4 on all camera bodies, and will focus with a 2x on bodies like the 20D and better.
Whats interesting is that the OP hasn't come back yet..
The 20D won't AF at f/8. For that, you need a higher up model unless you tape the pins or use a TC that doesn't relay aperture info back to the body. I AF w/ a 2x with an f/4 lens on my 350D, but only because I use a "dumb" TC.jared_kipe said:100-300mm sigma will focus with the 1.4 on all camera bodies, and will focus with a 2x on bodies like the 20D and better.
Whats interesting is that the OP hasn't come back yet..
jared_kipe said:
I just started using a Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 - hoooolllly smokes. unless you have the money dont bother with canon and hook up that sigma lens.. that constant 2.8 aperture is GREAT - especially when you're shooting indoor sports.. hockey/bball/swimming/etc.
When I do get a telephoto lens, it will probably be the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM DG. I prefer it over the Canon 70-200mm f/4L. For one thing, what I've read claims that Sigma has the edge in terms of absolute resolution. For another thing, the Sigma has f/2.8. Lastly, the Sigma is very well built (not that the Canon isn't), comes with a tripod mount, and, well, I like black lenses.
If sigma had HSM on all their EX lenses, and had the zoom ring go the right way from canon user's perspectives (at least on canon mount lenses) I think they would probably enjoy even more popularity. They do have some Quality control issues though. My first copy of my 24-70mm was horrible, but I sent it back and the second one is AWESOME, just sent it in for a focus problem though.form said:
jared_kipe said:
The issue with Sigma CAN be compatibility issues as Canon brings out new cameras. Sigma lenses may require "re-chipping" in order to work with newer bodies. If one is one to hold on to lenses "long term", this can be a problem.
But they rechip them for free from what I've heard. And there hasn't been a problem for a long as I can remember, except HSM lenses and the D200.Chip NoVaMac said:
jared_kipe said:
That is true. But it is a pain IMO to send a lens out for something like that. Also after a certain amount of time, rechipping is not possible. I like the possibility of my lenses lasting decades.
Getting back to the OP discussion and going through all of the reply's for captuing what it is he wants to capture which choice is the best bang for the buck?
Canon 70-200 F4 L
Canon 70-300 IS
Sigma 70-200 F2.8
One would think the 2.8 would be best for his need, but since that was not in his original parameter would he be best suited with the F4 L due to it's AF speed?
Canon 70-200 F4 L
Canon 70-300 IS
Sigma 70-200 F2.8
One would think the 2.8 would be best for his need, but since that was not in his original parameter would he be best suited with the F4 L due to it's AF speed?
My vote would probably be squarely on the sigma 70-200 or 100-300, but from his original picks.ziwi said:
I believe the 70-300mm IS would be the best bang for the buck. Better range, IS, and I bet they'd probably focus about as fast. (the 70-300mm has a new motor and focusing algorithm.)