Sigma 70-300 mm Lens

devleenas · Mar 5th, 2008, 18:59

Ok ..back to research work !!!

devleenas · Mar 6th, 2008, 16:44

The OS variety costs a lot

much above my budget ..
I was dumb enough to have confused the image stabilization part .
Thanks EOS

but settling for the same lens

Lucid · May 23rd, 2008, 12:22

As some one mention if you are getting rid of 18-55 mm lense which lense you prefer instead for carry around??

Anyways Try out canon's 17-85mm(IS), you will not regret it.

tboxcar · May 23rd, 2008, 13:33

I too have the Tamron AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II and I'm just an average photographer, but this lens lets you surely do alot more than what came with my Rebel XT, it's certainly not expensive compared to Canon lenses, but does really well!

zoltan · May 23rd, 2008, 15:42

One of the best sites I've found for reviews is Luminous Landscape

They have reviews on many lenses and cameras.

Personally, I shoot with a Canon 40D and currently have two lenses (17-85 EF & 80-300 DO). The quality of the photos that I get from these lenses speak for themselves.

I have had friends who have used Sigma lenses with some very good results.

Generally, at the end of the day, the more money you can put to the lenses, the better quality your pictures will be.

The other thing to keep in mind is that many people will keep the same brand of camera body (and upgrade every few years), and in doing that, you can use the same lenses on the new camera.

Cheers
Zoltan

Lucid · May 23rd, 2008, 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoltan

Personally, I shoot with a Canon 40D and currently have two lenses (17-85 EF & 80-300 DO). The quality of the photos that I get from these lenses speak for themselves.

Zoltan

40D is a steller camera, how is 80-300 DO when compared to 75-300 f/4 5.6 IS ?? and what exactly is "DO" refers too on the 80-300 lense ?

zoltan · May 24th, 2008, 05:36

Damn... re-read my specs on the lens, I was out by a few mm...

It's actually a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens

The DO refers to diffractive optics. This was a technique used years back on the original 500mm fixed length lenses (I think it was in the 1980's) which allowed Canon to manufacture a small barrel length while still allowing a long focal length.

The only problem I have found with this lens is that if you don't shoot at a sufficient speed (at least 1/450 sec), the picture (when enlarged) looks very soft. But when done at high speeds (usually high ISO or lots of natural light), the pictures are awesome.

It's a nice compact lens (but I have to say the other one (17-85) is razor sharp in comparasin).

I'm now looking at expanding my lens collection - a fixed length (around 135mm) and a higher end one something around the 500mm. Money is no real object (until I have to pay for it) :-)

Cheers
Zoltan

Hyderabadi · May 24th, 2008, 07:33

So, I have a question. Looks like many on here are facinated with the 'zoom' lenses, my question is, what would you have on your DSLR all the time, that is what is your general purpose lens? :

18-55
17-85
18-200
28-135
70-200
70-300
80-300....

Dont forget the 500mm + lenses you see at sporting events and the f stops, those are important, very.

Please also factor in focal lengths - http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/glo...equivalent.php

Don't forget the tripods, to get a decent picture at full zoom:
http://www.amazon.com/Sachtler-Syste...1586422&sr=1-1 - suggestion.

Do consider the 'L' lenses too: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-400mm-Su...ombo_pack_i_36 - suggestion.

The winning answer/post will be supplied with a personalized email address, to which you will be able to send your, credit card info along with the CVV number, date of birth, full name as in date of birth certificate, social security number (if in USA), passport number, 10 passport size photographs (as required), home adress and other relevant details as necessary to recieve a 75% OFF discounts.

So please??

zoltan · May 24th, 2008, 09:07

I can't tell if the post above is tongue in cheek or serious

Quote:

what would you have on your DSLR all the time, that is what is your general purpose lens?

For me, it's the 17-85 EF lens. Lightweight and good focal range for most shooting.

Quote:

Do consider the 'L' lenses too:

Generally, too heavy for general use. But, they do have the benefit of weather seals, so shooting in dust; rain; etc. is a reduced concern.

Cheers
Zoltan

Hyderabadi · May 24th, 2008, 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoltan

I can't tell if the post above is tongue in cheek or serious

Cheers
Zoltan

100% serious actually.

Please read the fineprint though.

ks_bluechip · May 24th, 2008, 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoltan

One of the best sites I've found for reviews is Luminous Landscape They have reviews on many lenses and cameras. .........
Cheers
Zoltan

Zoltan; Thanks for this link! Looks like useful website to me; though still to see it in detail. I am a recent, amateur, entrant to DSLR-photography and have bought a Canon-D400 with Std Kit-Lens and a Tamron AF 70-300 ------ KS
.

Lucid · May 24th, 2008, 12:59

Hey thanks zoltan for that INSIGHT on "DO"

And i do agree EF 17-85 is a splendid lense although there is some green chrmoatic abberation when i use the WIDE angle on the pictures, other then this all good and compact.
I use Canon 40D with 18-75mm and 75-300 f/4 5.6 IS both are good enough lense as of now.

zoltan · May 24th, 2008, 16:02

Hi KS,

Happy to help out - I've found that Lum. Landscapes is quite thorough on their evaluation of equipment and gives an unbiased opinion of many items (cameras/lenses).

Because they have no (obvious) kickbacks for reviewing equipment, I feel that the reviews are worth reading through to help me make my decisions on what to purchase.

El, interested to hear about the abberation - does it occur at all speeds/iso's or only at specific ranges ?

At work, the manager of the photographic team (right next door to my group), told me there is a rule of thumb where the shutter speed should be at 1east the length of the lens's maximum focal length.

That is, if your lens is a 75-300, (factor in the 1.6x adjustment to the focal length that the DSLR has unless the unit is a full-frame body), and this gives you 480mm. So, at the maximum focal length (480mm), your shutter speed should be a minimum of 1/480th (or as close to) of a second.

In the case of the 17-85, the minimum shutter speed should be 1/136 (or thereabouts).

I have yet to test this rule to see what the results are like. Then again, I should do a full test of the DO lens at various apertures and ISO's to find the "sweet-spot" that the lens offers.

Cheers
Zoltan

Lucid · May 24th, 2008, 16:22

Hey zoltan,

The green chromatic abberation is at 17mm, which is highly visible in a all the wide variety of shooting situations. Now if you’re only planning on viewing files on screen or making small prints, this may not be a huge problem, but if you are making large prints or viewing at 100% it’s a clear issue. It can be overcome if you are prepared to shoot in RAW and eliminate the CA in post-processing.

Moreover i have spent a lot of time clicking with this lense and there is fair bit of barrel distortion also at 17mm which totally rules out "good" architecture pictures..

So in a nutshell the EFS 18-75 is vurnerable at wide angle aspect of the lense. Rest is brilliant.

I for 1 highly recommend this lense.

mikewill · Jun 2nd, 2008, 05:03

I have an EOS 300D, bought in Malaysia about 6 years ago. I've been very pleased with it. For a long while I used the kit 18-55 zoom, plus my old 28-90 from my old film SLR. Because I also shoot a lot of wildlife stuff (not very well) I have a Sigma 70-300 APO Macro. I had to send it back to Sigma when I changed to the 300D and they rechipped it. It's a great lens and has a particularly good macro facility, very helpful when taking butterflies etc (300mm macro means you don't have to be so close!).

However, this all meant that I was carrying three lenses around plus the rest of the stuff we all need. So last summer I took the plunge and bought a Canon 17-85 IS USM and a 70-300 IS USM. The latter is about half the price of the DO IS USM lens Zoltan mentions, but is much bigger.

So, am I happy now? Well the 17-85 is great - the wide angle is wide enough for most things and the tele is mostly long enough, certainly for everyday carry-around. The 70-300 is a bit of a curate's egg (i.e good in parts); the IS means it's better for low light situations in the forest at early morning or late afternoon and generally I'm pleased with it - great for sports. BUT the macro is nothing like as good as the Sigma, which also has a handy close up lens that screws on like a filter. I still have it and haven't decided to part with it yet. Talking of filters, because the 17-85 is a 67mm filter size (as opposed to the 58mm of all the others) I had to buy a new polarizer too.

Life is never simple! Be careful if going for the Sigma to get the more expensive APO Macro DG version, which is about 50% more expensive than the other Sigma, but still less than half the price of the cheaper Canon. Incidentally, the 75-300 Canon lenses are not supposed to be as good as the 70-300s.

Any clearer now? No, me neither.

May 23rd, 2008, 15:42	#20
zoltan Maha Guru Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 899	One of the best sites I've found for reviews is Luminous Landscape They have reviews on many lenses and cameras. Personally, I shoot with a Canon 40D and currently have two lenses (17-85 EF & 80-300 DO). The quality of the photos that I get from these lenses speak for themselves. I have had friends who have used Sigma lenses with some very good results. Generally, at the end of the day, the more money you can put to the lenses, the better quality your pictures will be. The other thing to keep in mind is that many people will keep the same brand of camera body (and upgrade every few years), and in doing that, you can use the same lenses on the new camera. Cheers Zoltan __________________ India (and other) photos click here

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens cleaning	dreamer	Photography	11	Mar 2nd, 2009 17:36
Lens compatibility	clawhammer	Photography	2	Apr 20th, 2006 23:44
telephoto lens in kolkata	clawhammer	Photography	2	Mar 18th, 2006 14:57
Contact lens stuff	Noz	Packing Tips for India travel	2	Dec 2nd, 2004 22:03
Camera & Lens Help	oldhippie	Electronics in India	1	Oct 15th, 2003 23:38

Mar 5th, 2008, 18:59	#16
devleenas Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Bangalore Posts: 95	Ok ..back to research work !!!

Mar 6th, 2008, 16:44	#17
devleenas Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Bangalore Posts: 95	The OS variety costs a lot much above my budget .. I was dumb enough to have confused the image stabilization part . Thanks EOS but settling for the same lens

May 23rd, 2008, 12:22	#18
Lucid Cosmos Integration ! Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Chandigarh / New Delhi Posts: 514	As some one mention if you are getting rid of 18-55 mm lense which lense you prefer instead for carry around?? Anyways Try out canon's 17-85mm(IS), you will not regret it.

May 23rd, 2008, 13:33	#19
tboxcar Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: USA Posts: 28	I too have the Tamron AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II and I'm just an average photographer, but this lens lets you surely do alot more than what came with my Rebel XT, it's certainly not expensive compared to Canon lenses, but does really well!

May 24th, 2008, 05:36	#22
zoltan Maha Guru Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 899	Damn... re-read my specs on the lens, I was out by a few mm... It's actually a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens The DO refers to diffractive optics. This was a technique used years back on the original 500mm fixed length lenses (I think it was in the 1980's) which allowed Canon to manufacture a small barrel length while still allowing a long focal length. The only problem I have found with this lens is that if you don't shoot at a sufficient speed (at least 1/450 sec), the picture (when enlarged) looks very soft. But when done at high speeds (usually high ISO or lots of natural light), the pictures are awesome. It's a nice compact lens (but I have to say the other one (17-85) is razor sharp in comparasin). I'm now looking at expanding my lens collection - a fixed length (around 135mm) and a higher end one something around the 500mm. Money is no real object (until I have to pay for it) :-) Cheers Zoltan

May 24th, 2008, 07:33	#23
Hyderabadi Maha Guru Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: GA,USA. Posts: 1,533	So, I have a question. Looks like many on here are facinated with the 'zoom' lenses, my question is, what would you have on your DSLR all the time, that is what is your general purpose lens? : 18-55 17-85 18-200 28-135 70-200 70-300 80-300.... Dont forget the 500mm + lenses you see at sporting events and the f stops, those are important, very. Please also factor in focal lengths - http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/glo...equivalent.php Don't forget the tripods, to get a decent picture at full zoom: http://www.amazon.com/Sachtler-Syste...1586422&sr=1-1 - suggestion. Do consider the 'L' lenses too: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-400mm-Su...ombo_pack_i_36 - suggestion. The winning answer/post will be supplied with a personalized email address, to which you will be able to send your, credit card info along with the CVV number, date of birth, full name as in date of birth certificate, social security number (if in USA), passport number, 10 passport size photographs (as required), home adress and other relevant details as necessary to recieve a 75% OFF discounts. So please??

May 24th, 2008, 12:59	#27
Lucid Cosmos Integration ! Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Chandigarh / New Delhi Posts: 514	Hey thanks zoltan for that INSIGHT on "DO" And i do agree EF 17-85 is a splendid lense although there is some green chrmoatic abberation when i use the WIDE angle on the pictures, other then this all good and compact. I use Canon 40D with 18-75mm and 75-300 f/4 5.6 IS both are good enough lense as of now.

May 24th, 2008, 16:02	#28
zoltan Maha Guru Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 899	Hi KS, Happy to help out - I've found that Lum. Landscapes is quite thorough on their evaluation of equipment and gives an unbiased opinion of many items (cameras/lenses). Because they have no (obvious) kickbacks for reviewing equipment, I feel that the reviews are worth reading through to help me make my decisions on what to purchase. El, interested to hear about the abberation - does it occur at all speeds/iso's or only at specific ranges ? At work, the manager of the photographic team (right next door to my group), told me there is a rule of thumb where the shutter speed should be at 1east the length of the lens's maximum focal length. That is, if your lens is a 75-300, (factor in the 1.6x adjustment to the focal length that the DSLR has unless the unit is a full-frame body), and this gives you 480mm. So, at the maximum focal length (480mm), your shutter speed should be a minimum of 1/480th (or as close to) of a second. In the case of the 17-85, the minimum shutter speed should be 1/136 (or thereabouts). I have yet to test this rule to see what the results are like. Then again, I should do a full test of the DO lens at various apertures and ISO's to find the "sweet-spot" that the lens offers. Cheers Zoltan

May 24th, 2008, 16:22	#29
Lucid Cosmos Integration ! Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Chandigarh / New Delhi Posts: 514	Hey zoltan, The green chromatic abberation is at 17mm, which is highly visible in a all the wide variety of shooting situations. Now if you’re only planning on viewing files on screen or making small prints, this may not be a huge problem, but if you are making large prints or viewing at 100% it’s a clear issue. It can be overcome if you are prepared to shoot in RAW and eliminate the CA in post-processing. Moreover i have spent a lot of time clicking with this lense and there is fair bit of barrel distortion also at 17mm which totally rules out "good" architecture pictures.. So in a nutshell the EFS 18-75 is vurnerable at wide angle aspect of the lense. Rest is brilliant. I for 1 highly recommend this lense.

Jun 2nd, 2008, 05:03	#30
mikewill Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Exeter, England Posts: 282	I have an EOS 300D, bought in Malaysia about 6 years ago. I've been very pleased with it. For a long while I used the kit 18-55 zoom, plus my old 28-90 from my old film SLR. Because I also shoot a lot of wildlife stuff (not very well) I have a Sigma 70-300 APO Macro. I had to send it back to Sigma when I changed to the 300D and they rechipped it. It's a great lens and has a particularly good macro facility, very helpful when taking butterflies etc (300mm macro means you don't have to be so close!). However, this all meant that I was carrying three lenses around plus the rest of the stuff we all need. So last summer I took the plunge and bought a Canon 17-85 IS USM and a 70-300 IS USM. The latter is about half the price of the DO IS USM lens Zoltan mentions, but is much bigger. So, am I happy now? Well the 17-85 is great - the wide angle is wide enough for most things and the tele is mostly long enough, certainly for everyday carry-around. The 70-300 is a bit of a curate's egg (i.e good in parts); the IS means it's better for low light situations in the forest at early morning or late afternoon and generally I'm pleased with it - great for sports. BUT the macro is nothing like as good as the Sigma, which also has a handy close up lens that screws on like a filter. I still have it and haven't decided to part with it yet. Talking of filters, because the 17-85 is a 67mm filter size (as opposed to the 58mm of all the others) I had to buy a new polarizer too. Life is never simple! Be careful if going for the Sigma to get the more expensive APO Macro DG version, which is about 50% more expensive than the other Sigma, but still less than half the price of the cheaper Canon. Incidentally, the 75-300 Canon lenses are not supposed to be as good as the 70-300s. Any clearer now? No, me neither.