advice on tele-zoom needed

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 16, 2006.

  1. Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
    wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But now
    i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
    IS, but....

    Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are supposley
    much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
    live without it, or not?

    So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses, i'd be
    gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about top price
    i could afford right now...

    Second thing is - in future i will need an additional flash, so again here
    are two models- -Canon 430Ex or Sigma EF-500 DG - it seems there are two
    models - ST and SUP - whatever difference is--- so, which one to choose,
    since price is similar, while sigma is somewhat stronger?
    THX
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
    > wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
    > now
    > i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
    > IS, but....
    >
    > Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    > supposley
    > much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
    > live without it, or not?


    Not if you are planning on hand-holding your lenses. Those are serious
    monsters that require a strong sturdy tripod. (The Sigma gets good reviews.)

    The Canon is a different beast altogether.

    http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html

    http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review2.html

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:eegopt$5qj$...
    >
    > "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
    >> wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
    >> now
    >> i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
    >> IS, but....
    >>
    >> Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    >> supposley
    >> much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
    >> live without it, or not?

    >
    > Not if you are planning on hand-holding your lenses. Those are serious
    > monsters that require a strong sturdy tripod. (The Sigma gets good
    > reviews.)
    >
    > The Canon is a different beast altogether.
    >
    > http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html
    >
    > http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review2.html
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >

    yep, they are monsters, sure. Also IS on Canon is temptating...since i've
    had S2 IS, i already know the benefits of it.It's just---is it worthed...i
    mean, since IS itself costs quite a lot, the means that overall lens quality
    is quite average (Canon one, i mean). So buying Sigma or Tokina would give
    better quality, but sure, also limited use...
    oh, well---
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    > news:eegopt$5qj$...
    >
    >>"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>>Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
    >>>wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
    >>>now
    >>>i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
    >>>IS, but....
    >>>
    >>>Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    >>>supposley
    >>>much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
    >>>live without it, or not?

    >>
    >>Not if you are planning on hand-holding your lenses. Those are serious
    >>monsters that require a strong sturdy tripod. (The Sigma gets good
    >>reviews.)
    >>
    >>The Canon is a different beast altogether.
    >>
    >>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html
    >>
    >>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review2.html
    >>
    >>David J. Littleboy
    >>Tokyo, Japan
    >>
    >>

    >
    > yep, they are monsters, sure. Also IS on Canon is temptating...since i've
    > had S2 IS, i already know the benefits of it.It's just---is it worthed...i
    > mean, since IS itself costs quite a lot, the means that overall lens quality
    > is quite average (Canon one, i mean). So buying Sigma or Tokina would give
    > better quality, but sure, also limited use...
    > oh, well---
    >
    >

    Another thing to look at is the minimum focusing distance.
    I have Sigma lenses (no longer used), and find them generally
    good (at least the ones I have bought). But I find something
    is compromised to get a simpler design at a lower cost.
    Often that is closest focusing distance. So then when
    you get close to a subject, like an animal, you find you can't
    focus. Some 3rd party lenses may also weigh more than their brand
    name counterparts.

    Personally, I won't buy another lens, especially telephoto,
    without IS.

    If you want quality, you'll find with the small pixels of the 30D
    you'll need fixed focus lenses. Zooms are generally softer, and
    large range zooms even softer, especially when you get 10x zooms.
    I recommend going fixed lenses. For example, I found the Canon
    100-400 L IS too soft and switched to a 300 f/4 L IS. The 300
    is cheaper and much better image quality than my 100-400,
    even at 420 mm (with a 1.x4 TC). I also have a Sigma 170-500
    and it is sharper than the Canon 100-400, but not as good as the
    300 f/4.

    Roger
    Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Sep 16, 2006
    #4
  5. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
    >
    >> "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:eegopt$5qj$...
    >>
    >>>"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>>Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
    >>>>wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
    >>>>now
    >>>>i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them
    >>>>have
    >>>>IS, but....
    >>>>
    >>>>Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    >>>>supposley
    >>>>much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
    >>>>live without it, or not?
    >>>
    >>>Not if you are planning on hand-holding your lenses. Those are serious
    >>>monsters that require a strong sturdy tripod. (The Sigma gets good
    >>>reviews.)
    >>>
    >>>The Canon is a different beast altogether.
    >>>
    >>>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html
    >>>
    >>>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review2.html
    >>>
    >>>David J. Littleboy
    >>>Tokyo, Japan
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> yep, they are monsters, sure. Also IS on Canon is temptating...since i've
    >> had S2 IS, i already know the benefits of it.It's just---is it
    >> worthed...i mean, since IS itself costs quite a lot, the means that
    >> overall lens quality is quite average (Canon one, i mean). So buying
    >> Sigma or Tokina would give better quality, but sure, also limited use...
    >> oh, well---
    >>
    >>

    > Another thing to look at is the minimum focusing distance.
    > I have Sigma lenses (no longer used), and find them generally
    > good (at least the ones I have bought). But I find something
    > is compromised to get a simpler design at a lower cost.
    > Often that is closest focusing distance. So then when
    > you get close to a subject, like an animal, you find you can't
    > focus. Some 3rd party lenses may also weigh more than their brand
    > name counterparts.
    >
    > Personally, I won't buy another lens, especially telephoto,
    > without IS.
    >
    > If you want quality, you'll find with the small pixels of the 30D
    > you'll need fixed focus lenses. Zooms are generally softer, and
    > large range zooms even softer, especially when you get 10x zooms.
    > I recommend going fixed lenses. For example, I found the Canon
    > 100-400 L IS too soft and switched to a 300 f/4 L IS. The 300
    > is cheaper and much better image quality than my 100-400,
    > even at 420 mm (with a 1.x4 TC). I also have a Sigma 170-500
    > and it is sharper than the Canon 100-400, but not as good as the
    > 300 f/4.
    >
    > Roger
    > Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com


    i see. Well, i guess in this case i'd need some not too expensive zoom lens
    for general purpose, which in my case is Canon. Then when i'll see the need,
    i'll get one by one some fixed focus lenses (when my budget allows).
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 16, 2006
    #5
  6. Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) <> wrote:

    > Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
    > wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But now
    > i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
    > IS, but....
    >
    > Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are supposley
    > much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
    > live without it, or not?
    >
    > So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses, i'd be
    > gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about top price
    > i could afford right now...


    If you think you need 400mm or 500mm, start asking yourself why you want
    a zoom. You can get a fixed-length 400 or 500 for about the same cost,
    and it's likely better quality (I say likely because while I wish I had
    more experience with such lenses, I don't).

    I'm in a similar predicament, and I think I'm going to go with an
    off-brand fixed-length, unless I can find a used Pentax.
     
    Paul Mitchum, Sep 16, 2006
    #6
  7. "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    news:1hlr3m3.1bljs0abljwmoN%0m...
    > Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) <> wrote:
    >
    >> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
    >> wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
    >> now
    >> i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
    >> IS, but....
    >>
    >> Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    >> supposley
    >> much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
    >> live without it, or not?
    >>
    >> So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses, i'd
    >> be
    >> gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about top
    >> price
    >> i could afford right now...

    >
    > If you think you need 400mm or 500mm, start asking yourself why you want
    > a zoom. You can get a fixed-length 400 or 500 for about the same cost,
    > and it's likely better quality (I say likely because while I wish I had
    > more experience with such lenses, I don't).
    >
    > I'm in a similar predicament, and I think I'm going to go with an
    > off-brand fixed-length, unless I can find a used Pentax.


    that is what i start to ask myself. I'd say that 300 is quite enough for a
    general use lens, while for anything more pro, fixed one would be the one,
    right ?
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 16, 2006
    #7
  8. Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) <> wrote:

    > "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    > news:1hlr3m3.1bljs0abljwmoN%0m...
    > > Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So,
    > >> i wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now.
    > >> But now i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of
    > >> them have IS, but....
    > >>
    > >> Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    > >> supposley much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i
    > >> guess i could live without it, or not?
    > >>
    > >> So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses, i'd
    > >> be gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about
    > >> top price i could afford right now...

    > >
    > > If you think you need 400mm or 500mm, start asking yourself why you want
    > > a zoom. You can get a fixed-length 400 or 500 for about the same cost,
    > > and it's likely better quality (I say likely because while I wish I had
    > > more experience with such lenses, I don't).
    > >
    > > I'm in a similar predicament, and I think I'm going to go with an
    > > off-brand fixed-length, unless I can find a used Pentax.

    >
    > that is what i start to ask myself. I'd say that 300 is quite enough for a
    > general use lens, while for anything more pro, fixed one would be the one,
    > right ?


    Well, it all depends. :)

    If you see yourself needing to change focal lengths without changing
    lenses, then get the zoom.

    I was thinking I might get the Sigma 170-500 or the 135-400, but I
    figured I'd just be using the longest length all the time anyway. So why
    not get the fixed length? If you have a different set of needs, then get
    a zoom.
     
    Paul Mitchum, Sep 16, 2006
    #8
  9. Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

    > i see. Well, i guess in this case i'd need some not too expensive zoom lens
    > for general purpose, which in my case is Canon. Then when i'll see the need,
    > i'll get one by one some fixed focus lenses (when my budget allows).


    You might also consider buying a L lens used.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Sep 16, 2006
    #9
  10. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
    >
    >> i see. Well, i guess in this case i'd need some not too expensive zoom
    >> lens for general purpose, which in my case is Canon. Then when i'll see
    >> the need, i'll get one by one some fixed focus lenses (when my budget
    >> allows).

    >
    > You might also consider buying a L lens used.
    >
    > Roger

    i thought of that, too...i'll look around thanks
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 16, 2006
    #10
  11. "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    news:1hlr6su.744eth1klqs74N%0m...
    > Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    >> news:1hlr3m3.1bljs0abljwmoN%0m...
    >> > Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So,
    >> >> i wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now.
    >> >> But now i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither
    >> >> of
    >> >> them have IS, but....
    >> >>
    >> >> Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    >> >> supposley much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i
    >> >> guess i could live without it, or not?
    >> >>
    >> >> So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses,
    >> >> i'd
    >> >> be gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about
    >> >> top price i could afford right now...
    >> >
    >> > If you think you need 400mm or 500mm, start asking yourself why you
    >> > want
    >> > a zoom. You can get a fixed-length 400 or 500 for about the same cost,
    >> > and it's likely better quality (I say likely because while I wish I had
    >> > more experience with such lenses, I don't).
    >> >
    >> > I'm in a similar predicament, and I think I'm going to go with an
    >> > off-brand fixed-length, unless I can find a used Pentax.

    >>
    >> that is what i start to ask myself. I'd say that 300 is quite enough for
    >> a
    >> general use lens, while for anything more pro, fixed one would be the
    >> one,
    >> right ?

    >
    > Well, it all depends. :)
    >
    > If you see yourself needing to change focal lengths without changing
    > lenses, then get the zoom.
    >
    > I was thinking I might get the Sigma 170-500 or the 135-400, but I
    > figured I'd just be using the longest length all the time anyway. So why
    > not get the fixed length? If you have a different set of needs, then get
    > a zoom.


    for now i think zoom lens will be the one i'll need more. Just last sunday i
    shot a local concert in a small church and current 17-85IS came as planned -
    just right wide angle, but at the same time big tele enough for my needs. So
    i think if i get a "decent" (well, it's a relative word, right) tele i'll be
    fine for a certain time. Later on--we'll see... I think that fixed focus is
    right for just certain type of shooting, while i'll be doing more or less
    various stuff (for now at least ).
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 16, 2006
    #11
  12. Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)

    JC Dill Guest

    On 16 Sep 2006 20:14:09 +0200, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
    >message news:...
    >> Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
    >>
    >>> i see. Well, i guess in this case i'd need some not too expensive zoom
    >>> lens for general purpose, which in my case is Canon. Then when i'll see
    >>> the need, i'll get one by one some fixed focus lenses (when my budget
    >>> allows).

    >>
    >> You might also consider buying a L lens used.
    >>
    >> Roger

    >i thought of that, too...i'll look around thanks


    I purchased both my L lenses and my 1DmarkII body used. The first
    lens (70-200 f2.8 L IS) I bought off of eBay. The other lens and body
    I bought from a friend.

    I saved ~25% on each lens versus their new price at the time of
    purchase, and saved ~40% on the price of the 1DMII.

    jc

    --

    "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
    of different horses without having to own that many."
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
     
    JC Dill, Sep 16, 2006
    #12
  13. "JC Dill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 16 Sep 2006 20:14:09 +0200, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote
    >>in
    >>message news:...
    >>> Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> i see. Well, i guess in this case i'd need some not too expensive zoom
    >>>> lens for general purpose, which in my case is Canon. Then when i'll see
    >>>> the need, i'll get one by one some fixed focus lenses (when my budget
    >>>> allows).
    >>>
    >>> You might also consider buying a L lens used.
    >>>
    >>> Roger

    >>i thought of that, too...i'll look around thanks

    >
    > I purchased both my L lenses and my 1DmarkII body used. The first
    > lens (70-200 f2.8 L IS) I bought off of eBay. The other lens and body
    > I bought from a friend.
    >
    > I saved ~25% on each lens versus their new price at the time of
    > purchase, and saved ~40% on the price of the 1DMII.
    >


    nice...i wonder why people sell such stuff...i hope not because something
    would be wrong with it ...
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 16, 2006
    #13
  14. Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)

    Frank ess Guest

    Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
    > "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    > news:1hlr3m3.1bljs0abljwmoN%0m...
    >> Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens.
    >>> So, i wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L
    >>> right now. But now
    >>> i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of
    >>> them have IS, but....
    >>>
    >>> Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    >>> supposley
    >>> much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i
    >>> could live without it, or not?
    >>>
    >>> So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two
    >>> lenses,
    >>> i'd be
    >>> gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about
    >>> top price
    >>> i could afford right now...

    >>
    >> If you think you need 400mm or 500mm, start asking yourself why you
    >> want a zoom. You can get a fixed-length 400 or 500 for about the
    >> same cost, and it's likely better quality (I say likely because
    >> while I wish I had more experience with such lenses, I don't).
    >>
    >> I'm in a similar predicament, and I think I'm going to go with an
    >> off-brand fixed-length, unless I can find a used Pentax.

    >
    > that is what i start to ask myself. I'd say that 300 is quite enough
    > for a general use lens, while for anything more pro, fixed one would
    > be the one, right ?


    My experience was: Learning to use the 70-300 DO IS was fun and more
    fun. Then I tried a (freeware?) program that looked at the EXIF info
    on all the photos it could find, and showed focal length for each.
    Turned out I used any intermediate f/l very infrequently, essentially
    a finding that the 'zoom' feature was an economic waste.

    As has been mentioned, for the same money better quality of image is
    available in fixed focal length.

    I don't remember the name of the program, and it doesn't seem to have
    made the migration to a newer computer, but it's not a necessity to
    make the kind of judgement we're talking about.

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Sep 16, 2006
    #14
  15. "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
    >> "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    >> news:1hlr3m3.1bljs0abljwmoN%0m...
    >>> Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens.
    >>>> So, i wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L
    >>>> right now. But now
    >>>> i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of
    >>>> them have IS, but....
    >>>>
    >>>> Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    >>>> supposley
    >>>> much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i
    >>>> could live without it, or not?
    >>>>
    >>>> So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses,
    >>>> i'd be
    >>>> gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about
    >>>> top price
    >>>> i could afford right now...
    >>>
    >>> If you think you need 400mm or 500mm, start asking yourself why you
    >>> want a zoom. You can get a fixed-length 400 or 500 for about the
    >>> same cost, and it's likely better quality (I say likely because
    >>> while I wish I had more experience with such lenses, I don't).
    >>>
    >>> I'm in a similar predicament, and I think I'm going to go with an
    >>> off-brand fixed-length, unless I can find a used Pentax.

    >>
    >> that is what i start to ask myself. I'd say that 300 is quite enough
    >> for a general use lens, while for anything more pro, fixed one would
    >> be the one, right ?

    >
    > My experience was: Learning to use the 70-300 DO IS was fun and more fun.
    > Then I tried a (freeware?) program that looked at the EXIF info on all the
    > photos it could find, and showed focal length for each. Turned out I used
    > any intermediate f/l very infrequently, essentially a finding that the
    > 'zoom' feature was an economic waste.
    >
    > As has been mentioned, for the same money better quality of image is
    > available in fixed focal length.
    >
    > I don't remember the name of the program, and it doesn't seem to have made
    > the migration to a newer computer, but it's not a necessity to make the
    > kind of judgement we're talking about.
    >
    > --
    > Frank ess


    hm...now it's up to me to start learning, huh? damn...it's hard to decide...
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 16, 2006
    #15
  16. "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
    >>> "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    >>> news:1hlr3m3.1bljs0abljwmoN%0m...
    >>>> Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens.
    >>>>> So, i wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L
    >>>>> right now. But now
    >>>>> i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of
    >>>>> them have IS, but....
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    >>>>> supposley
    >>>>> much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i
    >>>>> could live without it, or not?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses,
    >>>>> i'd be
    >>>>> gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about
    >>>>> top price
    >>>>> i could afford right now...
    >>>>
    >>>> If you think you need 400mm or 500mm, start asking yourself why you
    >>>> want a zoom. You can get a fixed-length 400 or 500 for about the
    >>>> same cost, and it's likely better quality (I say likely because
    >>>> while I wish I had more experience with such lenses, I don't).
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm in a similar predicament, and I think I'm going to go with an
    >>>> off-brand fixed-length, unless I can find a used Pentax.
    >>>
    >>> that is what i start to ask myself. I'd say that 300 is quite enough
    >>> for a general use lens, while for anything more pro, fixed one would
    >>> be the one, right ?

    >>
    >> My experience was: Learning to use the 70-300 DO IS was fun and more fun.
    >> Then I tried a (freeware?) program that looked at the EXIF info on all
    >> the photos it could find, and showed focal length for each. Turned out I
    >> used any intermediate f/l very infrequently, essentially a finding that
    >> the 'zoom' feature was an economic waste.
    >>
    >> As has been mentioned, for the same money better quality of image is
    >> available in fixed focal length.
    >>
    >> I don't remember the name of the program, and it doesn't seem to have
    >> made the migration to a newer computer, but it's not a necessity to make
    >> the kind of judgement we're talking about.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Frank ess

    >
    > hm...now it's up to me to start learning, huh? damn...it's hard to
    > decide...
    >

    i've just read....one of options would be the new EF 70-200 L F4 IS USM,
    available in November...
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 16, 2006
    #16
  17. Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)

    Bigma Guest

    "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <> a écrit dans le
    message de news: ...
    > Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
    > wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
    > now
    > i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
    > IS, but....
    >
    > Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    > supposley
    > much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
    > live without it, or not?
    >
    > So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses, i'd be
    > gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about top
    > price
    > i could afford right now...
    >
    > Second thing is - in future i will need an additional flash, so again here
    > are two models- -Canon 430Ex or Sigma EF-500 DG - it seems there are two
    > models - ST and SUP - whatever difference is--- so, which one to choose,
    > since price is similar, while sigma is somewhat stronger?
    > THX
    >
    >

    Long live to Bigma!

    When shooting moving subjects coming to you, you'll need constantly
    exchanging your fixed focal L lens with some other one (which has to be L
    glass, too ?) ever and ever.
    I use the Sigma 50-500 since last may and I do not regret!
    I like the 10 x range, it is one of the features I needed.
    It is clean at all focal lenghts, only some minor vigneting when extended to
    500 mm.

    http://www.dhost.info/photocanon/rythmes/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y
    http://www.dhost.info/photocanon/50-500/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y&page=all

    or on another server:
    http://baron.phpnet.us/rythmes/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y
    http://baron.phpnet.us/50-500/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y&page=all


    And it gives you a good excuse for going outside to take pictures: you'll do
    your muscles training at the same time.
    After all you'll need to carry only your kit lens and the 50-500...
    And it is ready for your full frame body later. I mean, your next digital
    camera.

    Mike
     
    Bigma, Sep 18, 2006
    #17
  18. "Bigma" <> wrote in message
    news:AFnPg.11877$P%...
    >
    > "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <> a écrit dans le
    > message de news: ...
    >> Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
    >> wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
    >> now
    >> i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
    >> IS, but....
    >>
    >> Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
    >> supposley
    >> much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
    >> live without it, or not?
    >>
    >> So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses, i'd
    >> be
    >> gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about top
    >> price
    >> i could afford right now...
    >>
    >> Second thing is - in future i will need an additional flash, so again
    >> here
    >> are two models- -Canon 430Ex or Sigma EF-500 DG - it seems there are two
    >> models - ST and SUP - whatever difference is--- so, which one to choose,
    >> since price is similar, while sigma is somewhat stronger?
    >> THX
    >>
    >>

    > Long live to Bigma!
    >
    > When shooting moving subjects coming to you, you'll need constantly
    > exchanging your fixed focal L lens with some other one (which has to be L
    > glass, too ?) ever and ever.
    > I use the Sigma 50-500 since last may and I do not regret!
    > I like the 10 x range, it is one of the features I needed.
    > It is clean at all focal lenghts, only some minor vigneting when extended
    > to
    > 500 mm.
    >
    > http://www.dhost.info/photocanon/rythmes/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y
    > http://www.dhost.info/photocanon/50-500/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y&page=all
    >
    > or on another server:
    > http://baron.phpnet.us/rythmes/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y
    > http://baron.phpnet.us/50-500/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y&page=all
    >
    >
    > And it gives you a good excuse for going outside to take pictures: you'll
    > do
    > your muscles training at the same time.
    > After all you'll need to carry only your kit lens and the 50-500...
    > And it is ready for your full frame body later. I mean, your next digital
    > camera.
    >
    > Mike
    >
    >

    Nice shots...
    i'll go and try it out tomorroy if all goes well. Then we'll see.
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 18, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ronny Svensson

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Ronny Svensson, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    963
    Ronny Svensson
    Aug 23, 2003
  2. Stefan Patric

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Stefan Patric, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    824
    Stefan Patric
    Aug 23, 2003
  3. J.A.G

    Tele or Zoom for F707

    J.A.G, Nov 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    392
    Godfrey
    Nov 9, 2003
  4. dragon1964

    Which tele-zoom?

    dragon1964, Feb 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    380
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=
    Feb 11, 2004
  5. Moderator
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    412
    Mr. Strat
    Nov 27, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page