Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
- SnapShot Forum
- →
- THE LEARNING CENTER
- →
- Equipment Reviews & Opinions
- →
- canon 100-300 4.5-5.6- 38
| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| canon 100-300 4.5-5.6- 38; is that right | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 4 2008, 04:47 PM (107 Views) | |
| patmed | Aug 4 2008, 04:47 PM Post #1 |
Moderator
|
first off...is the lens any good at only 279.00 is it worth the money and secondly....is it really necessary to have an f38? |
 |
 
|
| gretchensteele | Aug 4 2008, 06:52 PM Post #2 |
Admin
|
That's one of canon's ucky lenses... it's slow and clunky.. and no I don't think it's worth it .. I think it would only frustrate the living crap out of you... You would have buyers remorse.. as for the f/38.. I suppose at some point you might want to go there.. I rarely go above 29.. but Kyle probably has more insight on both parts of the question.. |
|
|
|
| patmed | Aug 4 2008, 07:01 PM Post #3 |
|
Moderator
|
can you recommend a better one that is comparable in zoom without costing me my truck, car, and one of my twins |
|
|
|
| gretchensteele | Aug 4 2008, 07:16 PM Post #4 |
|
Admin
|
What are you wanting to shoot with it? If you don't mind it being a smidgen on the slow side.. the Sigma new 70-300 w/ macro is good all purpose inexpensive place to start.. remember with a cropped sensor you're going to be at longer focal lengths.. the 70 300 will give you the same as 112 - 480... it's slower to focus in lower light and you need to be steady with it or use a higher iso or tripod in low light.. but once you get the hang of it's limitations and how to work around them.. you are good to go for a great many things.. I used mine darn near to death.. No it's not the same as 70-200 2.8... but idf you aren't wanting to spend a bazillion dollars it's good... almost all of my macros were done with one.. and until I got the 400 my birds and wildlife were too.. so if that helps at all...  and it is not made specifically for the small sensors so you can use it on a full frame with out fighting the vignetting.. it gets a rough review in some places but those are usually from L series snobs and it's not meant to be that same quality... like apples and oranges.. it all goes back to understanding what you've got and what it will and won't do.. my biggest complaint was the bokeh seemed a little linear to me.. but I think that has been solved in the newest editions.. some fols have complained about a lot of fringing.. but I didn't have that problem with mine. That's the one that goes to the woods with me.. that way I'm not risking some of my pricer lenses when I'm hiking etc.. it's not heavy.. not difficult.. and canons plain (non L series ) 70-300 is just a huge dog...it's awful.. they've missed the boat here I'm sad to admit.. they don't offer a decent lens in that category at all... I think cause they are busy touting the L series lenses.. and really I've done just as well Sigmas EX series in comparison to L's ..... |
|
|
|
| patmed | Aug 4 2008, 08:08 PM Post #5 |
|
Moderator
|
i had the 70-300 sigma with the nikon but i wasnt really too happy with it. it did ok if there was plenty of light but even around 6-7 pm when the sun was starting to peak behind the mountains it was just horrible. that was over two years ago and i wasnt aware they have come out with a newer one. i think that one was around 200 wasnt it. ill have to go look |
|
|
|
| gretchensteele | Aug 4 2008, 08:22 PM Post #6 |
|
Admin
|
Bam had lots of fits with it too.. but the guy that bought it from her turns out some pretty good looking stuff.. but he's very methodical...the "new" ones are significnatly improved over the older ones.. Maybe you had the non APO version? this is the one I was talking about... http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3303&navigator=3 I'd like to have one of these....sigh http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3316&navigator=3 |
|
|
|
| patmed | Aug 4 2008, 08:27 PM Post #7 |
|
Moderator
|
the non apo but dg lens is 130 at bh im still looking for the apo version |
|
|
|
| patmed | Aug 4 2008, 08:36 PM Post #8 |
|
Moderator
|
and what about this one Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS |
|
|
|
| patmed | Aug 4 2008, 08:43 PM Post #9 |
|
Moderator
|
the 70-300 apo is only 219. i think i can afford that. and ti got great reviews. |
|
|
|
| gretchensteele | Aug 4 2008, 09:14 PM Post #10 |
|
Admin
|
I've never had any luck with Taroms.. they tell me that the new editions of those are greatly improved as well but I've never used one or known anyone who has.. |
|
|
|
| patmed | Aug 4 2008, 09:27 PM Post #11 |
|
Moderator
|
the sigma apo dg is the one i said was only like 219 so thats acctually cheaper than the canon lens |
|
|
|
| kman627 | Aug 4 2008, 09:30 PM Post #12 |
Film Junkie
|
I've used this lens before. The optics were great. AF was slow, but I never use AF anyway so I didn't mind. f/38 is great to have in my opinion. You want as great a range in aperture as possible. I'd love to have a f/1.0-265 lens! The great thing about a smaller aperture is more DOF (especially in a long zoom when shooting landscapes, as well as the ability to use longer exposures. I liked this lens a lot and found it to be worth the money. I don't use zooms anymore, but if I did I would possibly consider this one. All modern optics are good. Yes, some have lower dispersion glass and a lot of other shit that make them incredibly expensive. I've seen beautiful work with crappy lenses, it's all a matter of how you use it. |
|
|
|
| gretchensteele | Aug 4 2008, 09:30 PM Post #13 |
|
Admin
|
PAT!! I just thought of something that may make a difference to you..given you in an area with so much harsh light.. the front element rotates and that may cause some issues with a circular polorizing filter.. hmmm Thought 'd better tell you about that when it popped into my head... |
|
|
|
| patmed | Aug 4 2008, 09:34 PM Post #14 |
|
Moderator
|
but kyle...what would you use an f38 for? |
|
|
|
| gretchensteele | Aug 4 2008, 09:36 PM Post #15 |
|
Admin
|
K man I just couldn't get the one I had to work to suit me.. I guess I couldn't get my head wrapped around it or something.. I agree.. know what you've got in your hands, and know what it does well and what it does poorly and figure out how to get it to do what you want given those factors.. I never figured it out with that one.. but I did with the sigma..something else I've noticed with Sigma is periodically it seems they just plain seem to make a batch of lenses that are crap.. and folks return them and the next replacement they send doesn't even seem to be the same lens it's so much better.. I've been lucky and never got one that was bad.. but I wonder if the same thing happens with other lens makers as well? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Equipment Reviews & Opinions · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 7:22 AM Jan 8
|