17-40L or 70-200L - Arg.. decisions decisions

Raider

Raider

Raider

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,576
Location
Leamington Spa / Oxford
I finally have a bit of spare money this month, so i'm after a new lens.

I currently have:
350D
50mm F1.8
18-55mm Kit lense
Sigma 70-300 APO DG

It annoys me that the 18-55mm isn't very sharp unless you crank up to F8, and since I like to take a lot of outdoor snaps then this can be a problem if the light isn't that great. So to be able to use the 17-40mm at F4 would be great.

However I also like taking wildlife snaps and the problem I have atm with the Sigma 70-300mm is that unless the sun is shining, almost every shot I take is at ISO 1600 just so I can have a short enough shutter time at F7 or above.
So the F4 70-200L would be very nice, assuming it's nice and sharp at F4!

So any opinions?
 
morgan said:
look at the sigma 15-30...if you get a good one it is far better than the 17-40 and it will save you big bucks
Click to expand...

Are there any weird effects with using 15mm? Any perspective correction required for example?
 
if u can't make your mind up between those 2 lens, consider

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD IF
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF

both for around £800.
 
nolimit said:
if u can't make your mind up between those 2 lens, consider

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD IF
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF

both for around £800.
Click to expand...
From what i know the 70-200 is a LOT less than that, nearly half the price less?
 
SDK^ said:
This lens is great for wildlife - you can use a 1.4x or 2x convertor and still retain autofocus.
Click to expand...

Don't have that much money to spend!
£500 is my limit really for either type of lens! :p
 
SDK^ said:
In that case get the 17-40L F4.
200mm is too short for wildlife photography
Click to expand...

True, what about the Canon 70-300 IS though?
If I a normal 300mm lens requires you to shoot at around 1/600 to avoid camera shake, what does the IS 300mm allow you to do?

Having said that longer exposures aren't much good for fast moving wildlife :(

Arg why can't they make an F4 300mm for less than the price of a kidney :p
 
Raider said:
True, what about the Canon 70-300 IS though?
If I a normal 300mm lens requires you to shoot at around 1/600 to avoid camera shake, what does the IS 300mm allow you to do?

Having said that longer exposures aren't much good for fast moving wildlife :(

Arg why can't they make an F4 300mm for less than the price of a kidney :p
Click to expand...

The focal length/shutter speed rule says that 300mm needs 1/300 to be handheld. IS should allow you to go much lower and depending on the operator can be around 1/60.

Take a look at the Sigma 100-300 F/4. Its unique thing that may be what you need.
 
I'd Definately recommend the Sigma 100-300 F4. It can be had with a 1.4x converter in the UK for around £650, giving you a 420mm F5.6.

As you can see it can do wildlife:
goldfinch354web.jpg


and it can do people, this was handheld @420mm and you aint gonna get sharper than this for that money:

closeup1.jpg


John
 
That Sigma 100-300mm F4 looks great but I have a few questions:

1) It's 3x the weight of my Sigma 70-300mm APO, is it really possible to hand hold this?

2) How sharp is it at F4? I don't want to be forced to stop down to F6 or higher just to get a sharp image!

3) How cheap can I get it for on its own in the UK :p
 
The sigma 100-300 is not that heavy it only weights 1.4kg and, my sigma 70-200 is 1.2kg and I think it is very light. I prefer to have heavy lens as it allows you to be more stable.

I've seen in the UK retail shop for.

the non DG version retails at £550
the DG version retails at £700

from HK online (not sure how much delivery & tax you have to pay)

the DG version retails at £514

not sure how sharp it is.
 
The 100-300EX is a heavy lens (coming from using the 70-300 super macro), but compared to a 100-400L or a similar professional telezoom or prime I guess its not that bad. I have handheld it for an hour or so at a time without much difficulty, though if youre holding it to your eye all that time then it may be more of an issue - Im thinking motorsports might involve more holding?

Im at work so I can't remember the exact settings but im pretty sure this was at f4 fully extended, I can send you some originals at f4 if you are interested
_MG_3757b.jpg


I bought mine fro HK and it cost me about £550 a year ago if I remember correctly.

stu
 
To add my own thoughts (for the 70-200):

If your looking for far shooting shots of wildlife I would probably not bother, it just simply won't give the range. However it is a wonderful lens and is sharp all the way through...I think largely its doing me well for Motorsport and there will be a 1.4x convertor joining it eventually:- this will retain autofocus however a 2x will not.

Why lenses are being recommended that are way over your budget I do not know, especially when bought brand new. However the 2 you've picked out in your original post I'm sure you won't go far wrong with. You've just got decide whether 200mm will be long enough for you and then moreover how often do you want to shoot with this sort of zoom?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom