Re jiggle my long end?

413x

413x

413x

Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
33,166
Location
Llaneirwg
As per previous thread I'm just not finding I like my sigma lens at 300mm 1.4tc

1) it's not that long
2) it's not that sharp
3) the stabilisation isn't a touch on canons

Also have not actually managed to get to any sports events
Possibly as shots of cars have all been done etc. (there's only so many variations of car you can get)

Also I will hopefully at least be trying a 500mm for the summer


All this leads me to wonder if I'll make much use of the sigma going forward

It's too heavy to just pick up and go out with for a casual walk with the dog
It's too heavy full stop for gf to use
Too long for people/wedding etc and to short for birds
It very much has its place for sports but I don't see me doing this
If I do ever go to the odd event it's a bit unjustified anyway

Getting rid would leave me with only my 100mm f2.8 L macro to fill space between 50mm and 500mm

Photography I do that falls in this range is mainly the dog, probably the zoo

I would have to cover this with 100mm fixed. Impossible for zoo, awkward for those dog action shots.

Should I get rid?
If I do.. Should I fill the void.
 
I had the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 a few years ago and liked it a lot but if you're getting a 500 F4 then it'll be pointless keeping it. Get something lighter like the mentions above.
 
I would definitely get rid of the 120-300 if you get a 500mm.

For light weight wildlife, zoo, landscape, general lens then you can't beat the 70-300mm L IMO.
if you want something more geared towards portraits then the 70-200mm f/2.8 is what you want. This does OK for the former but is also a big heavy lens.
 
I don't use Canon now but I've had a play with the 70-300 L recently and for a lightweight carry around it seemed ideal.

Alternatively when I used Canon I had the 70-200 2.8 L and that was a great lens but it is rather heavy when compared to something like the 70-300.
 
Looks like it's between

70-300mm L
70-200mm L ii

Main issues being
Weight (1000g vs 1500g)
Length
Aperture
Image quality

With only image quality being non absolute in that list
 
Is F2.8 required on the 70-200 zoom, as that is adding a lot of weight.

Or go primes; A Canon 135L F2 is one of Canon's sharpest lenses (The Lord of the Red Rings) it weighs 750g and is around £650. Likewise the 200 F2.8 II prime.
 
SDK^ said:
Is F2.8 required on the 70-200 zoom, as that is adding a lot of weight.

Or go primes; A Canon 135L F2 is one of Canon's sharpest lenses (The Lord of the Red Rings) it weighs 750g and is around £650. Likewise the 200 F2.8 II prime.
Click to expand...

Is the f2.8 required?
Not sure. It's hard to know. I usually compromise on weight vs aperture. I have no lenses slower than 2.8 except my uwa where it doesn't matter

Primes is probably a no at this point.
Probably the most difficult shots will be animals running

Another point I didn't mention is decent AF
 
SDK^ said:
Is F2.8 required on the 70-200 zoom, as that is adding a lot of weight.

Or go primes; A Canon 135L F2 is one of Canon's sharpest lenses (The Lord of the Red Rings) it weighs 750g and is around £650. Likewise the 200 F2.8 II prime.
Click to expand...

The 70-200mm f/2.8 beats the 200mm f/2.8 prime quite handily form an optical perspective.
 
al4x said:
Is the f2.8 required?
Not sure. It's hard to know. I usually compromise on weight vs aperture. I have no lenses slower than 2.8 except my uwa where it doesn't matter

Primes is probably a no at this point.
Probably the most difficult shots will be animals running

Another point I didn't mention is decent AF
Click to expand...

The 70-200mm f/2.8 gives yo good portrait options and low light ability.



If you go second hand you might be able to get both, I have a 70-300mm f/5.6 and 70-200mm f/2.8 and I use both, the 70-300 used to be used far more often.
 
D.P. said:
The 70-200mm f/2.8 beats the 200mm f/2.8 prime quite handily form an optical perspective.
Click to expand...
It should do - it's twice the price and twice as heavy.


D.P. said:
If you go second hand you might be able to get both, I have a 70-300mm f/5.6 and 70-200mm f/2.8 and I use both, the 70-300 used to be used far more often.
Click to expand...
Why would you want both of those lenses? You would only end up using one with the other gathering dust.
If you must have a zoom then the Canon 70-200 F2.8 II is simply the best option. Use that for your general portrait & animal photos and then you'll have the 500 F4 for the special stuff.
Get a 1.4x convertor and you'll be able to use it on the 70-200 and 500 :)
 
SDK^ said:
It should do - it's twice the price and twice as heavy.



Why would you want both of those lenses? You would only end up using one with the other gathering dust.
If you must have a zoom then the Canon 70-200 F2.8 II is simply the best option. Use that for your general portrait & animal photos and then you'll have the 500 F4 for the special stuff.
Get a 1.4x convertor and you'll be able to use it on the 70-200 and 500 :)
Click to expand...


The 70-300 and 70-200mm are very different lenses for different uses.
200mm is far too short for wildlife, 300mm is not great but is 50% better. The 70-200mm makes a fantastic portrait lens, wonderful head shots, and is good for sports. The 70-200mm is twice the weight and that has a big impact on usability, I'm much more more liekly to take the 70-300mm on a hike.


I use them both, the 70-300mm much more than the 70-200 so if I had to sell one the 2.8 would go. I nearly did sell it but started doing some profesional event work and find it very useful when I can't get close or to get better subject separation with creamy background.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom