Zoom Lens for Rebel XT

[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

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]

Some suggestions.

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]

LOL

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

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.