Lens Question

[leightonjames]

Hi everyone

I am going to purchase a nice telephoto lens to accomodate my 40D and i am unsure as to which one to purchase. How does the one below look?

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/70...

70-300mm is good but 200£??! Whats that about

im open to suggestions etc

Cheers

[Gingerbread Man]

This has come up loads before, use the search or flick back a page.

Summary:

I brought this lens as my first 300mm zoom. When I brought it, maybe 2 years ago now (?), It had great reviews saying that it was the best value 70-300mm zoom lens for the money.

It comes with it's own lens hood and has a macro mode. A good lens for not much money. I only upgraded as I fancied the 'IS' capability of the Canon 70-300mm IS.

It's a good buy, people may come up with some alternatives but in it's price range, If that is your budget, you can't go far wrong with it.

[RobDickinson]

55-250IS canon instead.

[leightonjames]

thanks for that gingerbreadman

Rob - Why do you suggest that lens over the 70-300? Does it have some advantages? This lens would be used between 100-300 all of the time and for wide shots i would use the 17-85 so the wide reach isn't really necessary.


Cheers

[Simpo Two]

leightonjames said:

Rob - Why do you suggest that lens over the 70-300?

Everyone thinks their kit is best

Choose the best for YOUR needs not someone else's (the same reason I don't use custom settings spreadsheets from Nikonians!).

[leightonjames]

Simpo Two said:

leightonjames said:

Rob - Why do you suggest that lens over the 70-300?

Everyone thinks their kit is best

Choose the best for YOUR needs not someone else's (the same reason I don't use custom settings spreadsheets from Nikonians!).

I see, is their a website that has loaddds of lens reviews, samples images etc. I think i remember seeing one where everyone gave their opinion and it rated them out of five stars but with lots of different opinions?

[Simpo Two]

leightonjames said:

I see, is their a website that has loaddds of lens reviews, samples images etc. I think i remember seeing one where everyone gave their opinion and it rated them out of five stars but with lots of different opinions?

I remember that too, but not what it was called! However, the point is the same - just because Herbert Thudbucket in Illinois thinks Lens X is great, it doesn't mean you will. Mr Thudbucket might be a respected pro, or he might be an idiot. All you get by reading reviews is someone else's opinion, which may be different from or the same as yours. Of course the more respected the writer, the more weight you should attach, but even so your needs/wants may be different.

I think the simplest way to judge lens quality (with some allowance for brand premium) is the price. The most expensive lens is likely to give the best images, and the cheapest is likely to give the worst.

Does that help?

[rustyspit]

leightonjames said:

I see, is their a website that has loaddds of lens reviews, samples images etc. I think i remember seeing one where everyone gave their opinion and it rated them out of five stars but with lots of different opinions?

This one?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

[leightonjames]

Simpo Two said:

leightonjames said:

I see, is their a website that has loaddds of lens reviews, samples images etc. I think i remember seeing one where everyone gave their opinion and it rated them out of five stars but with lots of different opinions?

I remember that too, but not what it was called! However, the point is the same - just because Herbert Thudbucket in Illinois thinks Lens X is great, it doesn't mean you will. Mr Thudbucket might be a respected pro, or he might be an idiot. All you get by reading reviews is someone else's opinion, which may be different from or the same as yours. Of course the more respected the writer, the more weight you should attach, but even so your needs/wants may be different.

I think the simplest way to judge lens quality (with some allowance for brand premium) is the price. The most expensive lens is likely to give the best images, and the cheapest is likely to give the worst.

Does that help?

Yes i do see but their are so many different elements (no pun intended) which i need to consider when purchasing a lens, the focus time, minimum, maximum aperture etc. Its not all really covered in reviews. Is the difference really worth that much!? So like 3,000 or 300!? I mean yeah it may be better but blimey id expect free access to every event possible for that money, as long as itsas good as my 17-85 IS USM kit lens im fine!

Edited by leightonjames on Sunday 6th July 11:17

[Steve Evil]

leightonjames said:

Hi everyone

I am going to purchase a nice telephoto lens to accomodate my 40D and i am unsure as to which one to purchase. How does the one below look?

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/70...

70-300mm is good but 200£??! Whats that about

im open to suggestions etc

Cheers

I have this lens on my 350D and it's been great with my limited photography experience, I managed to get it for £130 though.

I would say that if you're worried about paying £200 for a lens, then should you really have a 40D? I thought the rule was that the cost of your glass should outweigh the cost of the body.

[Taffer]

leightonjames said:

Hi everyone

I am going to purchase a nice telephoto lens to accomodate my 40D and i am unsure as to which one to purchase. How does the one below look?

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/70...

70-300mm is good but 200£??! Whats that about

im open to suggestions etc

Cheers

I've got the same lens, albeit with a Sony mount. It's a decent lens for the price IMO.

£199.99 though? Even Jessops don't sell it for that much!

Get it for £115.99 from Onestop Digital. Comes from HK, but has a full Sigma International Warranty, so no problems there.

[leightonjames]

Steve Evil said:

leightonjames said:

Hi everyone

I am going to purchase a nice telephoto lens to accomodate my 40D and i am unsure as to which one to purchase. How does the one below look?

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/70...

70-300mm is good but 200£??! Whats that about

im open to suggestions etc

Cheers

I have this lens on my 350D and it's been great with my limited photography experience, I managed to get it for £130 though.

I would say that if you're worried about paying £200 for a lens, then should you really have a 40D? I thought the rule was that the cost of your glass should outweigh the cost of the body.

Im not moaning at the cost of the lens, im surprised at how cheap it is.

[DIW35]

Have to go a long way to beat the Canon 70-200 L 2.8 IS

[havoc]

DIW35 said:

Have to go a long way to beat the Canon 70-200 L 2.8 IS

But for motorsport you'd need a 1.4 teleconverter, which would harm image-quality and reduce max useable aperture.

I looked at it, and decided it lacked the reach I wanted.


FredMiranda is a good website. I think there's another which assesses the levels of pincushioning, chromatic aberration, sharpness etc. That's objective stuff rather than subjective.

[flat-planedCrank]

havoc said:

.. I think there's another which assesses the levels of pincushioning, chromatic aberration, sharpness etc. That's objective stuff rather than subjective.

Perhaps thinking of photozone.de ?

Reviews on photozone:
Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG macro
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS



Cheers.

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

havoc said:

DIW35 said:

Have to go a long way to beat the Canon 70-200 L 2.8 IS

But for motorsport you'd need a 1.4 teleconverter, which would harm image-quality and reduce max useable aperture.

But, if you put it up against the 100-400 the aperture with a 2x converter on the 70-200is at 400mm is the same as is the image quality. That combo is much heavier and more expensive though.

As for the cheaper lenses some of the issue is the number of good copies to bad goes right up (there are obviously some bad lenses full stop). There's some really ropey 28-135is copies out there. Mine's ok, but not as good as some. My 15-30 Sigma is stunning for a cheap lens. At under a 1/15th of the cost of the body I use it on it puts paid to the glass should cost more than the camera line.

However my original 120-300 F2.8 Sigma was duff....

So, I'd say look at all the reviews. If they're all duff reviews then I'd stay away. If there's a few good ones, and the poster doesn't seem to be the classic defends everything they buy type, AND you're able to keep sending it back until you get a good one, it's a cheap route to go.

[RobDickinson]

Simpo Two said:

leightonjames said:

Rob - Why do you suggest that lens over the 70-300?

Everyone thinks their kit is best

Apart from I dont own one.

The canon is 50mm shorter than the sigma but has less distortion and significantly more resolution wide open at he longer focal lengths and in addition has decent IS, not to mention its CA is much better.