lzoom lens for EOS-10d

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Harold Silber, Jul 29, 2003.

  1. Good day
    I am getting a Canon EOS-10D with a 24 to 85mm canon lens . However I am
    looking to do quite a bit of sports photography so therefore I am looking to
    get a 70 to 300mm lens. I was about to get the Canon 70 - 300 usm III until
    I read all the reviews on the performance of this lens. What about a Sigma,
    Tamron or any other canon zoom . The price range I am looking at is no more
    then about 350 USD. I hear the 28 to 300 new Tamron lens produces great
    results.
    I have also read that some of the Sigma lens have to be modified in order to
    work with the 10D.
    Finally, is it better to buy a 1 gig compact flash card or a 512mb card .
    I await your comments ....

    Cheers
    Harold
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Harold Silber, Jul 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Harold Silber

    MarkH Guest

    "Harold Silber" <> wrote in
    news:bg4hpj$rj1$:

    > Good day
    > I am getting a Canon EOS-10D with a 24 to 85mm canon lens . However I
    > am looking to do quite a bit of sports photography so therefore I am
    > looking to get a 70 to 300mm lens. I was about to get the Canon 70 -
    > 300 usm III until I read all the reviews on the performance of this
    > lens. What about a Sigma, Tamron or any other canon zoom . The price
    > range I am looking at is no more then about 350 USD. I hear the 28 to
    > 300 new Tamron lens produces great results.


    You are talking about the 75-300 III USM? I have this lens and there are
    some examples on my website, mainly on the birds pages. I wanted a 70-200
    f2.8L IS lens, but like you my budget wont stretch that far (the lens costs
    more than the camera). I find the lens I have does a good job for what it
    cost. I don’t think that there will be anything from other brands that
    will be better for the same price. As always, if you are happy to spend
    more, then yes, there are better lenses available.


    For examples try:
    http://arrdee.net/~flyinass/markpics/Gulls.htm
    and:
    http://arrdee.net/~flyinass/markpics/Gulls2.htm





    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Jul 29, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising


  3. > Tamron or any other canon zoom . The price range I am looking at is no

    more
    > then about 350 USD. I hear the 28 to 300 new Tamron lens produces great
    > results.


    hi,
    hmmm Tamron - i got it only for few days and change it to canon 28-135IS -
    it's much better

    Tamron is great with 28-300 range but generates soft pics - i prefer better
    quality
    and sometimes it was hard to do nice pic without tripod with tamron...
    before buying i saw a lot of good examples from this lens, but i was not
    satisfied when i got it in my hands
    see some pics here (made in auto mode as a first phots with my 10d, but even
    this u can see how the quality is different):
    http://trans2.cm.kyushu-u.ac.jp/fotki/warlock/eos/tests/
    http://trans2.cm.kyushu-u.ac.jp/fotki/warlock/eos/21.7.03e-50mm-vs-28300mmXR/

    regards,
    Tomash
    Tomash Bednarz, Jul 29, 2003
    #3
  4. Harold Silber

    Lionel Guest

    On 29 Jul 2003 01:02:29 -0700, in
    <>,
    (Bernhard Mayer) said:

    >One alternative is the Canon EF 1:5.6/100-300L (watch for the L and
    >the 5.6)which again is one of the older lenses. It doesn't have USM,
    >but it certainly is the best and only budget 100-300 lens I would
    >personally use. -> eBay!


    Good call, Bernhard. I recently bought a used 1:5.6/100-300L, & it's a
    very nice lens indeed on my 10D. Mine cost me $730AUD (about $475USD). I
    wouldn't hesitate to recommend that model to anyone. The only thing I
    could bitch about is the non-USM AF, but I got it cheap enough that I
    consider it a fair tradeoff for the excellent optical quality.
    Eg: http://lo.ve.ly/art/aircraft/CRW_6990_std.jpg
    (No cropping - the helicopter filled the frame. You can literally count
    the rivets on it in the full size version.)

    >Both lenses should be within your budget. Watch out as there are
    >different versions of 70-210 and 100-300 lenses out there. Canon also
    >makes (or used to) the 70-210/4, which is crap.


    Agreed again. I picked up a 70-210/4 for next to nothing at a secondhand
    shop, & it isn't worth the little I paid for it. I'm still trying to
    figure out what to do with it.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Jul 29, 2003
    #4
  5. Harold Silber

    ralford Guest

    Thanks for posting the pictures, it is always useful to see actual pics from
    the lenses. The results are a bit soft and it would be helpful to know what
    setting were used, specifically the shutter speed/aperture, the focal
    length, and whether a tripod was used or not.

    Cheers,

    Richard



    "MarkH" <> wrote in message
    news:bg4n9m$2q2$...
    > "Harold Silber" <> wrote in
    > news:bg4hpj$rj1$:
    >
    > > Good day
    > > I am getting a Canon EOS-10D with a 24 to 85mm canon lens . However I
    > > am looking to do quite a bit of sports photography so therefore I am
    > > looking to get a 70 to 300mm lens. I was about to get the Canon 70 -
    > > 300 usm III until I read all the reviews on the performance of this
    > > lens. What about a Sigma, Tamron or any other canon zoom . The price
    > > range I am looking at is no more then about 350 USD. I hear the 28 to
    > > 300 new Tamron lens produces great results.

    >
    > You are talking about the 75-300 III USM? I have this lens and there are
    > some examples on my website, mainly on the birds pages. I wanted a 70-200
    > f2.8L IS lens, but like you my budget wont stretch that far (the lens

    costs
    > more than the camera). I find the lens I have does a good job for what it
    > cost. I don’t think that there will be anything from other brands that
    > will be better for the same price. As always, if you are happy to spend
    > more, then yes, there are better lenses available.
    >
    >
    > For examples try:
    > http://arrdee.net/~flyinass/markpics/Gulls.htm
    > and:
    > http://arrdee.net/~flyinass/markpics/Gulls2.htm
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    > See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    > "There are 10 types of people, those that
    > understand binary and those that don't"
    >
    ralford, Jul 29, 2003
    #5
  6. Harold Silber

    MarkH Guest

    "ralford" <> wrote in
    news:%luVa.159569$:

    > Thanks for posting the pictures, it is always useful to see actual
    > pics from the lenses. The results are a bit soft and it would be
    > helpful to know what setting were used, specifically the shutter
    > speed/aperture, the focal length, and whether a tripod was used or
    > not.


    No tripod, all handheld.

    If you save the pics from my site and check the EXIF data you can see most
    of the settings used including speed, aperture and focal length.

    Some pics may be soft but respond well to sharpening. Some pics may not be
    perfectly focused. I was not necessarily going for technical perfection
    when choosing which pics I liked enough to put on my website.

    I think the pictures might have been sharper and with better contrast if I
    had used a better lens. Maybe I’ll win the Lotto on Saturday and buy some
    nice ‘L’ series lenses, you never know.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Jul 29, 2003
    #6
  7. Harold Silber

    ralford Guest

    Thanks Mark, probably hand holding is the reason for the softness. I have a
    couple of examples of a Nikon 5700 w 1.5 teleconverter - 35mm equivalent of
    some 420mm lens at 1/250sec, displayed at a 1:1 pixel size. (see
    http://www.analyticinvestor.com/alford/tc-15ed.htm if interested.)
    Sharpening helped but the monopod was the critical improvement!

    A 5700 certainly isn't in the league as a D10 and canon 35mm lens, however,
    I suggest that these images are "sharper." Comparisons of images without
    using a tripod are fun but near useless for judging quality.

    I'm really not ragging on your pics or comments! Even if you win the
    lottery (hope you will share the wealth <g>) a tripod is necessary. BTW
    Roger Clark's site has really impressed me with what is possible wrt
    sharpness! (sf
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.florida.bird/index.html)

    Cheers,

    Richard


    "MarkH" <> wrote in message
    news:bg5t61$4m4$...
    > "ralford" <> wrote in
    > news:%luVa.159569$:
    >
    > > Thanks for posting the pictures, it is always useful to see actual
    > > pics from the lenses. The results are a bit soft and it would be
    > > helpful to know what setting were used, specifically the shutter
    > > speed/aperture, the focal length, and whether a tripod was used or
    > > not.

    >
    > No tripod, all handheld.
    >
    > If you save the pics from my site and check the EXIF data you can see most
    > of the settings used including speed, aperture and focal length.
    >
    > Some pics may be soft but respond well to sharpening. Some pics may not

    be
    > perfectly focused. I was not necessarily going for technical perfection
    > when choosing which pics I liked enough to put on my website.
    >
    > I think the pictures might have been sharper and with better contrast if I
    > had used a better lens. Maybe I’ll win the Lotto on Saturday and buy some
    > nice ‘L’ series lenses, you never know.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    > See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    > "There are 10 types of people, those that
    > understand binary and those that don't"
    >
    ralford, Jul 29, 2003
    #7
  8. Harold Silber

    Guest

    In message <%luVa.159569$>,
    "ralford" <> wrote:

    >Thanks for posting the pictures, it is always useful to see actual pics from
    >the lenses. The results are a bit soft and it would be helpful to know what
    >setting were used, specifically the shutter speed/aperture, the focal
    >length, and whether a tripod was used or not.


    All 10D pictures will be a little soft if they are not sharpened, and
    are viewed at pixel-level. The anti-aliasing filter used seems to
    attenuate at frequencies well below 70% of the nyquist, but there is so
    little noise that sharpening in software can bring back lots of sharp
    detail without introducing artifacts.

    This is not to say that some lenses aren't softer than others.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jul 30, 2003
    #8
  9. "Harold Silber" <> writes:

    > I am getting a Canon EOS-10D with a 24 to 85mm canon lens . However
    > I am looking to do quite a bit of sports photography so therefore I
    > am looking to get a 70 to 300mm lens. I was about to get the Canon
    > 70 - 300 usm III until I read all the reviews on the performance of
    > this lens. What about a Sigma, Tamron or any other canon zoom . The
    > price range I am looking at is no more then about 350 USD. I hear
    > the 28 to 300 new Tamron lens produces great results.


    Save you pennies and look for a 80-200 f2.8L (The original black arm
    builder :)), a 70-200 f2.8L non-IS, or a 300 f4L.

    All these are now supersceded and are being replaced by IS lenses so
    can be bought for a fraction of new cost.

    Also get rid of the zoom you have, and get a 50 f1.8 or 1.4.

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
    Paul Repacholi, Aug 2, 2003
    #9
  10. > Definitely do not get anything with the range 28-300mm, regardless of
    > whether it is Tamron or Canon or anything else, there are simply too many
    > compromises to be had with such a large zoom range (for instance, poor
    > optical quality, small aperture at long end).


    I've been quite pleased with the performance of the Canon 28-200 USM.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 2, 2003
    #10
  11. Harold Silber

    Rob Guest

    With only 1 large card you are putting all your eggs in one basket and
    should that card fail, be damaged or lost your out every photo you have
    taken on your n-week vacation. That's one advantage of having 2 smaller
    cards.

    Harold Silber wrote:
    > Good day
    > I am getting a Canon EOS-10D with a 24 to 85mm canon lens . However I am
    > looking to do quite a bit of sports photography so therefore I am looking to
    > get a 70 to 300mm lens. I was about to get the Canon 70 - 300 usm III until
    > I read all the reviews on the performance of this lens. What about a Sigma,
    > Tamron or any other canon zoom . The price range I am looking at is no more
    > then about 350 USD. I hear the 28 to 300 new Tamron lens produces great
    > results.
    > I have also read that some of the Sigma lens have to be modified in order to
    > work with the 10D.
    > Finally, is it better to buy a 1 gig compact flash card or a 512mb card .
    > I await your comments ....
    >
    > Cheers
    > Harold
    > Johannesburg, South Africa
    >
    >
    Rob, Aug 3, 2003
    #11
  12. Ryan Li <> writes:

    > In article <>,
    > Paul Repacholi <> wrote:
    >> "Harold Silber" <> writes:

    >
    >> > I am getting a Canon EOS-10D with a 24 to 85mm canon lens .

    >
    >> Also get rid of the zoom you have, and get a 50 f1.8 or 1.4.


    > Err... why? The Canon 24-85mm is a fine lens. How is he supposed to
    > shoot wide angle with a 50mm prime lens??


    OK, or a 24/28/35 instead. Get used to what a good lens should do
    rather than the zooms that give very iffy to ordiinary results unless
    you drop a serious wedge of readys.

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
    Paul Repacholi, Aug 3, 2003
    #12
  13. Harold Silber

    Lionel Guest

    On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:26:50 +0100, in <>, Ryan Li
    <> said:

    >In article <>,
    > Paul Repacholi <> wrote:
    >> "Harold Silber" <> writes:

    >
    >> > I am getting a Canon EOS-10D with a 24 to 85mm canon lens .

    >
    >> Also get rid of the zoom you have, and get a 50 f1.8 or 1.4.

    >
    >Err... why? The Canon 24-85mm is a fine lens.


    /Which/ 24-85mm are you referring to?

    > How is he supposed to shoot
    >wide angle with a 50mm prime lens??


    To the best of my knowledge, lack of wide angle lenses is not considered
    to be a leading cause of death in photographers. ;)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Aug 3, 2003
    #13
  14. Harold Silber

    Lionel Guest

    On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:52:51 GMT, in
    <>, Sandy Canetti
    <> said:

    >Speaking of telephoto zoom lenses for sports photography, I've been
    >trying to decide between a fixed length 300mm lens or a telephoto.
    >The Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus
    >Lens runs new in the neighborhood of $3,800, yet the Canon Ef
    >100-400mm f/ 4.5/5.6L USM runs only around $1,400. Both have image
    >stabilzers. What is the primary difference that accounts for such a
    >huge price gap?


    The f/1:2.8 vs f/1:4.5-5.6 factor. Try taking a shot of something that's
    moving, at 5.6 instead of 2.8, & you'll soon see why people are willing
    to pay the extra price.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Aug 4, 2003
    #14
  15. In article <bgkilb$cis$>, Lionel <> wrote:

    > >Speaking of telephoto zoom lenses for sports photography, I've been
    > >trying to decide between a fixed length 300mm lens or a telephoto.
    > >The Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus
    > >Lens runs new in the neighborhood of $3,800, yet the Canon Ef
    > >100-400mm f/ 4.5/5.6L USM runs only around $1,400. Both have image
    > >stabilzers. What is the primary difference that accounts for such a
    > >huge price gap?

    >
    > The f/1:2.8 vs f/1:4.5-5.6 factor. Try taking a shot of something that's
    > moving, at 5.6 instead of 2.8, & you'll soon see why people are willing
    > to pay the extra price.


    Also (at least judging from mtf charts since I haven't had the
    opportunity to try one) the 300/2.8 is way sharper than even L zooms.

    --
    David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
    Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
    David Eppstein, Aug 4, 2003
    #15
  16. Harold Silber

    Lionel Guest

    On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:24:56 -0700, in
    <>, David Eppstein
    <> said:

    >Also (at least judging from mtf charts since I haven't had the
    >opportunity to try one) the 300/2.8 is way sharper than even L zooms.


    Yes, that's what I would expect too. Looking at PhotoDo's MTF listings
    for Canon lenses, the standard primes have ratings typically at least a
    point (about 20-30%) better than the 'L' zooms. I've certainly found
    this to be true with the lenses I own (which include several standard
    primes & two 'L' series zooms).

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Aug 4, 2003
    #16
  17. Sandy Canetti <> wrote in message news:<>...

    > Speaking of telephoto zoom lenses for sports photography, I've been
    > trying to decide between a fixed length 300mm lens or a telephoto.
    > The Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus
    > Lens runs new in the neighborhood of $3,800, yet the Canon Ef
    > 100-400mm f/ 4.5/5.6L USM runs only around $1,400. Both have image
    > stabilzers. What is the primary difference that accounts for such a
    > huge price gap?


    the 2.8 vs. 4.5 apperture, consequently the size and quality of the
    images

    If you get the EF 300/4 L IS, it will only cut a $1500 hole in your
    pocket... and unless you're pro, that's what I would and probably will
    soon get


    I am not too convinced about the 100-400. It's not a bad lens, it
    succedes the 100-300/5.6L but it still nowhere near the L primes or
    (IMHO) the 70-200/4L 70-200/2.8L
    Bernhard Mayer, Aug 4, 2003
    #17
  18. Harold Silber

    JK Guest

    The speed. You could probably get a 300mm f4 or f4.5 lens for not that
    much. It will also be much ligher than a 300mm f2.8. I have a 200mm f3
    lens as well as a 200mm f4 lens. The f3 lens is MUCH heavier and bulkier
    than the f4 one.

    Bernhard Mayer wrote:

    > Sandy Canetti <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    > > Speaking of telephoto zoom lenses for sports photography, I've been
    > > trying to decide between a fixed length 300mm lens or a telephoto.
    > > The Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus
    > > Lens runs new in the neighborhood of $3,800, yet the Canon Ef
    > > 100-400mm f/ 4.5/5.6L USM runs only around $1,400. Both have image
    > > stabilzers. What is the primary difference that accounts for such a
    > > huge price gap?

    >
    > the 2.8 vs. 4.5 apperture, consequently the size and quality of the
    > images
    >
    > If you get the EF 300/4 L IS, it will only cut a $1500 hole in your
    > pocket... and unless you're pro, that's what I would and probably will
    > soon get
    >
    > I am not too convinced about the 100-400. It's not a bad lens, it
    > succedes the 100-300/5.6L but it still nowhere near the L primes or
    > (IMHO) the 70-200/4L 70-200/2.8L
    JK, Aug 4, 2003
    #18
  19. Harold Silber

    Lionel Guest

    On 3 Aug 2003 22:42:02 -0700, in
    <>,
    (Bernhard Mayer) said:

    >I am not too convinced about the 100-400. It's not a bad lens, it
    >succedes the 100-300/5.6L


    It'd have to be pretty good to beat the 100-300/5.6L. I've got one of
    those, & it's a really nice lens.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Aug 4, 2003
    #19
  20. On 3 Aug 2003 22:42:02 -0700, (Bernhard Mayer)
    wrote:

    >Sandy Canetti <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >> Speaking of telephoto zoom lenses for sports photography, I've been
    >> trying to decide between a fixed length 300mm lens or a telephoto.
    >> The Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus
    >> Lens runs new in the neighborhood of $3,800, yet the Canon Ef
    >> 100-400mm f/ 4.5/5.6L USM runs only around $1,400. Both have image
    >> stabilzers. What is the primary difference that accounts for such a
    >> huge price gap?

    >
    >the 2.8 vs. 4.5 apperture, consequently the size and quality of the
    >images


    wait a minute, I'm confused here. Maybe there is more of a difference
    between digital and film than I realized. How would aperture affect
    quality? The only thing a smaller aperture should mean is that since
    you are letting less light in, you need to adjust your shutter speed
    accordingly. This should only affect depth-of-field. Or am I
    oversimplifying?
    Sandy Canetti, Aug 4, 2003
    #20
    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. Dave.US

    Sigma 15-30mm Lens for Canon EOS 10D

    Dave.US, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,127
  2. George Preddy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,580
    Douglas
    May 24, 2004
  3. Einst Stein

    Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter

    Einst Stein, Oct 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,592
    Bo-Ming Tong
    Dec 13, 2006
  4. Einst Stein

    Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter

    Einst Stein, Oct 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    427
    Einst Stein
    Oct 29, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    677
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page