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

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?
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2003
Posts
2,446
Location
London
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Oct 2004
Posts
3,164
Location
Manchester
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.
From what i know the 70-200 is a LOT less than that, nearly half the price less?
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
21,102
Raider said:
Don't have that much money to spend!
£500 is my limit really for either type of lens! :p

In that case get the 17-40L F4.
200mm is too short for wildlife photography
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,576
Location
Leamington Spa / Oxford
SDK^ said:
In that case get the 17-40L F4.
200mm is too short for wildlife photography

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
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
9 Nov 2004
Posts
2,140
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

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.
 
Associate
Joined
23 May 2005
Posts
519
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
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,576
Location
Leamington Spa / Oxford
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
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2003
Posts
2,446
Location
London
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.
 
Associate
Joined
15 Nov 2002
Posts
829
Location
Colchester
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
 

Deleted member 11679

D

Deleted member 11679

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom