Need Some Zoom...

JLGouldJLGould Registered Users Posts: 10 Big grins
edited January 12, 2008 in Cameras
I picked up the 40D in September with the 28-135 IS kit lens. I'm feeling pretty comfortable with the camera, but its my first SLR, so I've been giving myself a lot of time to decide what sort of lenses I need. I'd probably give myself more time if it werent for the 17 bald eagle and 1 rare golden eagle sighting during my photo outing on Monday- every bird was out of range, though I do have a couple of nice landscape type shots where the bald eagles are identifiable. *Sigh*

I've also not been so happy with the noise in low-light. And I'm still carrying around my Konica Minolta A200 point and shoot for macros. :rofl

For now, I really just need some good zoominess!
I'm looking at:
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, but I've heard its slow in overcast conditions (though one wonders if I would notice in comparison to what I have now).
or
Sigma 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 OS

These are just the two I've heard the most about. Thoughts? Opinions? Other options?

Comments

  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited January 9, 2008
    I've been lookng at that range myself & have posted a few times here & at FM. At this point I'm pretty much down to three (maybe four) options I'm considering. Those being Canon's 300/4L IS, Sigma's 100-300/4, Tamron's 200-500/5-6.3, and maybe Canon's 400/5.6L. I have heard nothing but positive comments on both Canons (not surprising) and the Sigma. I have also seen examples of the primes and the 100-300 on a 1.4x TC that show little to no degradation. I am not looking too hard at the 400mm as it's more suited to birding & that's not my main intended use--but it's apparently one of the most popular birding lenses.

    You really won't find much in the way of really fast glass in this range unless you're willing/able to drop over $2k. In which case there's the magic 300/2.8L IS, Sigma 120-300/2.8, and Canon 400mm lenses (f2.8L IS, and f4 DO IS). Really at these focal lengths you should be on a tripod or at least a monopod, so being slower shouldn't be too big of a deal.

    I've used the 100-400 and it produces excellent images, but I didn't care for how it handled--too many annoying quirks for me.
    Chris
    http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited January 9, 2008
    What you need is a class of lens called a supertelephoto, usually with a focal length greater than 300mm. Primes tend to run several thousnad dollars, so cheaper zooms are more popular with hobbiests.

    Going in terms of increasing price, online reliable internet prices from Pricegarbber.com that I would personally buy from or have bought from.

    Sigma 135-400mm: $500
    Not a popular lens with somewhat slow AF. I haven't seen much reviews of this lens though. But if you need something cheaper to get into the game, this may be it.Tokina 80-400mm: $600ish
    Not popular but small and cheap. I hear at the 400mm end, the optics suffer a bit. Built like an old Russian tank/tough.

    Sigma 175-500: just under $600 or so.
    Very similar to the Sigma 135-400 but with more reach for more dough. Again, not very popular among hobbiests. I hear the optics are ok, but not something to write home about. Not bad if you need the reach of 500mm though.

    Tamron 200-500: $800
    Very nice optics, but then again, has the least range as well. Tamron is made of plastic and feels a bit cheap but they are light and the optics are about as good as the other lenses that are more expensive coming up.

    Sigma 50-500/Bigma: $900ish
    This is a popular lens and I use it for all my zoo and planes stuff. It's optics are pretty good, especially considering that this is a 10X zoom that goes from 50-500mm. It's much more versatile than others for this reason. It also comes with a nice HSM AF motor, which is like Canon's USM AF. However, this is about 5lbs or more and is heavy. There is no stabilization other than good technique and/or a tripod, so if weight is a concern, then look elsewhere like the Tamron.

    Sigma 80-400 OS: $1000
    This is Sigma's version of NIkon's 80-400VR IIRC. Anyway I hear the optics are actually a bit better than the Canon one here. The Optical Stabilzation should get you about 2 stops of handholdablility. One thing is that it does not have HSM AF motor which is like the USM AF in Canon's.

    Canon 100-400/dust pumper:$1300
    This is a nice lens but an aging design. You have to push the lens barrel out to zoom out vs. twisting a zoom ring like all modern zooms. Hence the name dust pumper or the dust trombone. It's optics are pretty good. The IS is good for about 2 stops "only" b/c this is an older IS design. It does have weather seals, which may be significant since the 40D has some seals as well. It's pretty light compared to the bigma as well. It used to cost about $1500 so right now it's price is pretty good.

    If you just want to get into the game for the least dough, the Sigma 135-400mm may be good. If you want the best telephoto reach for the dollar, then the Tamron 200-500 would be my choice. If you want the most versatility, then I'd go with a bigma. If weight and handholdability is a concern, I'd go with the Canon over a Sigma 80-400 for it's superior AF and seals.

    Photozone.de and photodo.com have reviews on many of these lenses so check over there as well.
    My Gallery
  • JLGouldJLGould Registered Users Posts: 10 Big grins
    edited January 11, 2008
    Got it
    I went ahead and ordered the Canon 100-400 L from B&H. Thanks for all the input. Much appreciated!
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited January 12, 2008
    JLGould wrote:
    I went ahead and ordered the Canon 100-400 L from B&H. Thanks for all the input. Much appreciated!
    Ah the pumper... Cool, I think it'll serve you well.
    My Gallery
Sign In or Register to comment.