300mm ponderings

ElDude

ElDude

ElDude

Soldato
Joined
8 Apr 2004
Posts
2,729
Location
Wrexham
Righty, apologies for this mundane query as I know we've seen this sort of question god knows how many times, but as it's been a while I thought I'd ask again.

Last weekend I went for a toddle around Caernarfon castle, etc and found myself using my old Sigma 70-300 which I stopped using a long time ago as it's FAR too soft at 300 for anything decent to come out of it. In the middle it's not that bad, so I haven't sold it (to be honest I wouldn't wish it upon anyone anyway). On using it, it once again confirmed that it just isn't up to anything of a decent enough standard to be relied upon and I have nothing in this range to compensate. I realised that my taste for certain shots needs a lens like this now, so instead of getting the 85mm I was planning on getting, I think I'll now get something around the 200-300 area.

My question is not just which lens would you recommend for this length? It's a tough shout really as it's handy having the full 70-300 range, but that Sigma has put me off those APO things (or was it DG, I forget, or even APO DG :D) so I'd like an alternative. Unless of course the new ones (I bought this one 3-4 years ago) are pin sharp across the range!

The 300 end is of more importance I'd have thought for this sort of shot <-- I know that's a bit poo, but it's taken with the 70-300.

So does anyone have any recommendations for a lens for this, manufacturer unimportant as it's lens quality I'm looking for here.

Thanking you kindly :D

Oh I suppose it helps if I tell you it's for the Canon 30D :)
 
Last edited:
The professional choice is generally a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 300m prime (either a f/2.8 or a f/4 if you want to save some cash).

Certainly all the Canon and Nikon 70-200's are superb bits of glass and very flexible.
 
bigredshark said:
The professional choice is generally a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 300m prime (either a f/2.8 or a f/4 if you want to save some cash).

Certainly all the Canon and Nikon 70-200's are superb bits of glass and very flexible.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I had a feeling the first suggestion would be this as it's been in my list for a while. I only started thinking about the 85mm lens after seeing some fantastic shots with it. Common sense dictates I really should get the 200 and the 300 for the best of both worlds. I've got a 100mm, although a macro (the Sigma 105) but it's a VERY sharp lens so in reality I'm looking at shelling out for those two and the 85mm to cover pretty much the whole range, with decent options.
 
I just want to throw the idea of a 70-200 plus a 1.4x tele-converter in here.

I was going to also suggest old manual focus lenses as I've got a tack sharp Nikkor 80-200mm f4 (for £34) but saw you had Canon. Never-mind eh?
 
Don't bother with a 300mm f/2.8; too heavy and unless your at the sidelines of a pro football match with the 400 f/2.8ers, you'll probably feel pretty self concious.

EDIT: Check TP for used 70-200's!
 
Last edited:
I've seen good results published from a 70-300 DO. It's not an L quality lens but it might be worth a look (and will be half the price of a 70-200 300 combination).
 
Raikiri said:
Canon 200mm f2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter or the Sigma 100-300 f/4 could be cheaper options.
Click to expand...

200mm f/2.8 is no better than a 70-200mm f/2.8 (sigma non-dg's are supposed to be sharpest 3rd party lens, otherwise get an ISMKI or non-is canon). Even with a 1.4x TC.

A 100-300mm would be an option if you need 420mm, otherwise a 70-200mm is still just as good.

As said get a 70-200mm. If you need more reach add a 1.4xTC. If you need EVEN MORE add 300/400mm prime. ;)
 
I can't recommend the 300 f/4 enough... It's surprisingly useful for lots of things, quite often I'll take it out with my walkaround rather than my 70-200 f/4 and walkaround. Focuses quick, very sharp, not too heavy and it's white:D What's not to love? :)
 
More expensive than the faster 300mm f/4, if you need the extra reach or one lens to cover the whole range then it's worth a think but otherwise the prime is a better bet in almost all respects...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom