Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tele zoom for Canon 350D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 2:37:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a Canon
USM or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the
inexpensive range.

Reviews I've found so far are not all that helpful, as they don't
compare the lenses under consideration.

The Canon 75-300 doesn't appear to be all that hot, but what about the
others?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

More about : tele zoom canon 350d

Anonymous
August 7, 2005 2:37:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've read articles that compare the Canon 75-300 performance to that of
the Tamron 28-300 XR DI LD lens. Not used one myself. This does support
advance dTTL functions i have also read.

Happy hunting.

Try this: (tried it, its safe)
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00...

And this is a must read I just found:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9582

This: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-...
..... is also very informative from a pro.
August 7, 2005 4:29:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <eonwCJC3uT9CFwqz@ntlworld.com>, Peter Twydell
<peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a Canon
>USM or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the
>inexpensive range.
>
>Reviews I've found so far are not all that helpful, as they don't
>compare the lenses under consideration.
>
>The Canon 75-300 doesn't appear to be all that hot, but what about the
>others?

Suggest that you have a look at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

--
Robert
Related resources
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 5:57:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <eonwCJC3uT9CFwqz@ntlworld.com>,
Peter Twydell <peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a Canon
> USM or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the
> inexpensive range.
>
> Reviews I've found so far are not all that helpful, as they don't
> compare the lenses under consideration.
>
> The Canon 75-300 doesn't appear to be all that hot, but what about the
> others?

I have a Canon 75 - 300mm (1:4-5.6) Image Stabilizing Zoom Tele for
auction on ebay. Send me an email or search for seller "croatoan6" to
find it. It's a good lens. And while you are out shopping just remember,
perfect Is the enemy of the good. :^)

Peace.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 11:23:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:37:30 +0100, Peter Twydell wrote:

> I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a Canon
> USM or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the
> inexpensive range.
>
> Reviews I've found so far are not all that helpful, as they don't
> compare the lenses under consideration.
>
> The Canon 75-300 doesn't appear to be all that hot, but what about the
> others?

Sigma 70-300 APO DG appears to be a favourite of many in its price range.
It can do 1:2 macro as well.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to gmajumdar@freeuk.com
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 7:50:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter Twydell" <peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eonwCJC3uT9CFwqz@ntlworld.com...
> I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a Canon USM
> or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the inexpensive
> range.
>
> Reviews I've found so far are not all that helpful, as they don't compare
> the lenses under consideration.
>
> The Canon 75-300 doesn't appear to be all that hot, but what about the
> others?

I know you have stated that you can't afford an L lens, but .....

123fstop has an EF 70-200 f4L for sale at less than £400, it's new and in
the UK. I know he's straight because I've had two lenses off him. In fact I
was able to go and pick them up and pay cash.

I know it's more expensive than the 70-300 USM lens; but it is much much
better. You've spent £600 on a body - buy it a decent lens. I have the
70-200 f2.8, it's brilliant, but nearly twice the price of the f4.

John
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 7:53:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> 123fstop has an EF 70-200 f4L for sale at less than £400, it's new and in
> the UK. I know he's straight because I've had two lenses off him. In fact
> I was able to go and pick them up and pay cash.
>

oops; that's on eBay. Sorry

John
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 8:26:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <vJuu1BPJfU9CFw+W@rbel1.plus.com>, Robert <robert@rlh1.com>
writes
>In message <eonwCJC3uT9CFwqz@ntlworld.com>, Peter Twydell
><peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a Canon
>>USM or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the
>>inexpensive range.
>>
>>Reviews I've found so far are not all that helpful, as they don't
>>compare the lenses under consideration.
>>
>>The Canon 75-300 doesn't appear to be all that hot, but what about the
>>others?
>
>Suggest that you have a look at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
>
Thanks for the suggestion, but I've already seen it. Doesn't have the
APO Sigma.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 8:32:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <look-57E995.21572006082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>, CFB
<look@u.com> writes
>In article <eonwCJC3uT9CFwqz@ntlworld.com>,
> Peter Twydell <peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a Canon
>> USM or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the
>> inexpensive range.
>>
>> Reviews I've found so far are not all that helpful, as they don't
>> compare the lenses under consideration.
>>
>> The Canon 75-300 doesn't appear to be all that hot, but what about the
>> others?
>
>I have a Canon 75 - 300mm (1:4-5.6) Image Stabilizing Zoom Tele for
>auction on ebay. Send me an email or search for seller "croatoan6" to
>find it. It's a good lens. And while you are out shopping just remember,
>perfect Is the enemy of the good. :^)
>
>Peace.
>
Must be a different ebay! Your user profile shows no items for sale.
Thanks anyway for the information, but AFAIK the price of postage would
be prohibitive unless you practically give it away.

Cheers
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 11:58:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <42f61fd5_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, Eatmorepies
<naj9daynum3@lineone.net> writes
>
>"Peter Twydell" <peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:eonwCJC3uT9CFwqz@ntlworld.com...
>> I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a Canon USM
>> or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the inexpensive
>> range.
>>
>> Reviews I've found so far are not all that helpful, as they don't compare
>> the lenses under consideration.
>>
>> The Canon 75-300 doesn't appear to be all that hot, but what about the
>> others?
>
>I know you have stated that you can't afford an L lens, but .....
>
>123fstop has an EF 70-200 f4L for sale at less than £400, it's new and in
>the UK. I know he's straight because I've had two lenses off him. In fact I
>was able to go and pick them up and pay cash.
>
>I know it's more expensive than the 70-300 USM lens; but it is much much
>better. You've spent £600 on a body - buy it a decent lens. I have the
>70-200 f2.8, it's brilliant, but nearly twice the price of the f4.
>
>John
>
>
Good point about the body. Any tips on how to justify it to SWMBO? I
suppose if I keep taking cute piccies of the grandbrats she'll say it's
OK. If I even tell her what it costs, that is.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 12:18:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <42f6205d_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, Eatmorepies
<naj9daynum3@lineone.net> writes
>
>> 123fstop has an EF 70-200 f4L for sale at less than £400, it's new and in
>> the UK. I know he's straight because I've had two lenses off him. In fact
>> I was able to go and pick them up and pay cash.
>>
>
>oops; that's on eBay. Sorry
>
>John
>
>
Looks nice, but I wanted a longer reach for airshow use. AFAIK a 1.4
extender will fit, which would then give the 35mm equivalent of 448mm.
Worth thinking about...
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:41:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have used the 75-300 IS. This was Canon's first IS lens. It is reasonably
sharp in most situations, tolerable for weight, decent for travel but very
slow in auto-focusing. I put it back on eBay.

Next I tried a 70-200 f2.8 L (non-IS). Lens is amazingly sharp, terribly
heavy and fast focusing. I could not hand hold it well. it was not suitable
for my traveling needs. Sold that one on eBay for more than I paid for it.

I've recently acquired the 70-300 IS DO lens. IS is the best Canon has made
as this is their 2nd or 3rd generation of IS technology. Focusing is rapid,
hand-holding is a dream. I shoot with a 10D and my wife has an XT Rebel. We
both love it. (Should be ever divorce, there'd be custody issues surrounding
this lens. <G>) Preliminary tests I and a colleague had done indicate that
the lens is sharper at long end of its range, and not as good between
70-100mm. This lens is about $1200 or so street price.

I've used the Sigma 28-200 compact lens and a similar one from Tamron. Both
were OK but rather soft at the long end.

Steve
Tucson
"Peter Twydell" <peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eonwCJC3uT9CFwqz@ntlworld.com...
> I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a Canon USM
> or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the inexpensive
> range.
>
> Reviews I've found so far are not all that helpful, as they don't compare
> the lenses under consideration.
>
> The Canon 75-300 doesn't appear to be all that hot, but what about the
> others?
> --
> Peter
>
> Ying tong iddle-i po!
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 1:07:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter Twydell Wrote:
> I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a Canon
> USM or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the
> inexpensive range.

Hi Peter,

This may be slightly off topic but I was screwing around the other day
and tried a long distance shot with my EOS 350XT. Using a Sigma
70-300mm at the long end plus a tele-extender (2X) and getting this
shot at ~960mm (2x300x1.6) of Black Butte (6,420 feet). The pic is a
burn scar near the top of Black Butte and was hand held (I didn't have
my tripod with me.). The shot is slightly over three miles away from
the burn scar.

http://tinyurl.com/aobfm

To view the pic at the Photoworks site - select slide show - then
larger picture choice.

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon


--
Conrad
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 5:53:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve Dell" <stevedell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uOGdnQe92IxfTp3eRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>I have used the 75-300 IS. This was Canon's first IS lens. It is reasonably
>sharp in most situations, tolerable for weight, decent for travel but very
>slow in auto-focusing. I put it back on eBay.
>
> Next I tried a 70-200 f2.8 L (non-IS). Lens is amazingly sharp, terribly
> heavy and fast focusing. I could not hand hold it well. it was not
> suitable for my traveling needs. Sold that one on eBay for more than I
> paid for it.
>
> I've recently acquired the 70-300 IS DO lens. IS is the best Canon has
> made as this is their 2nd or 3rd generation of IS technology. Focusing is
> rapid, hand-holding is a dream. I shoot with a 10D and my wife has an XT
> Rebel. We both love it. (Should be ever divorce, there'd be custody issues
> surrounding this lens. <G>) Preliminary tests I and a colleague had done
> indicate that the lens is sharper at long end of its range, and not as
> good between 70-100mm. This lens is about $1200 or so street price.


This is a great lens but does not like backlighting. Of course the lenshade
is
not really correct for the 350 either: should be longer as it is aimed at
35mm.

What I did is get a piece of thin flat neoprene foam (probably like
wetsuites
have but anyway I had some), glue it into a cylinder about 6 inches long
(neoprene glue from a dive shop). The black open grain absorbs light it is
essentially weightless and crumples if it brushes anything so it adds
nothing
to the lens. The cylinder can be folded flat and uses very little space in a
camera bag, of course avoid folding on the seam.

With 5~6 inches I see no vignetting at widest. It could probably be longer.
One way would be to start at about 10 inches and cut back till the
vignetting
goes.

The change in ability to deal with backlighting is substantial.


>
> I've used the Sigma 28-200 compact lens and a similar one from Tamron.
> Both were OK but rather soft at the long end.
>
> Steve
> Tucson
> "Peter Twydell" <peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eonwCJC3uT9CFwqz@ntlworld.com...
>> I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a Canon
>> USM or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the
>> inexpensive range.
>>
>> Reviews I've found so far are not all that helpful, as they don't compare
>> the lenses under consideration.
>>
>> The Canon 75-300 doesn't appear to be all that hot, but what about the
>> others?
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Ying tong iddle-i po!
>
>
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 9:08:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1124197844.77dbdd5035e3b7f7fcf4f1604a82a256@teranews>,
Conrad <Conrad.1tuz6y@no-mx.Newsgroup.Gateway> writes
>
>Peter Twydell Wrote:
>> I'm looking for a zoom lens in the 70/75/100-300 range, either a
>Canon
>> USM or a Sigma APO. Can't afford an IS or an L or an EX, just the
>> inexpensive range.
>
>Hi Peter,
>
>This may be slightly off topic but I was screwing around the other day
>and tried a long distance shot with my EOS 350XT. Using a Sigma
>70-300mm at the long end plus a tele-extender (2X) and getting this
>shot at ~960mm (2x300x1.6) of Black Butte (6,420 feet). The pic is a
>burn scar near the top of Black Butte and was hand held (I didn't have
>my tripod with me.). The shot is slightly over three miles away from
>the burn scar.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/aobfm
>
>To view the pic at the Photoworks site - select slide show - then
>larger picture choice.
>
>Best,
>
>Conrad
>Camp Sherman, Oregon


>--
>Conrad

That's quite a shot for that distance. You're either very young and
haven't started drinking yet, or are ODing on the Beta blockers!

Current thinking is for a 70-200 L USM, plus a Canon 2x extender. After
dinner it might be a 75-300 USM IS, though. Then there's still the
Sigma...


I was going to attend the Decision Making course at the local college,
but I couldn't make my mind up whether to go on a Tuesday or a
Wednesday. :-)
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 4:51:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter Twydell wrote:

> That's quite a shot for that distance. You're either very young and
> haven't started drinking yet, or are ODing on the Beta blockers!
>
> Current thinking is for a 70-200 L USM, plus a Canon 2x extender. After
> dinner it might be a 75-300 USM IS, though. Then there's still the
> Sigma...

Personally, I *love* the L lenses, and I would second the recommendation
for the 70-200/4L (which is very nice).
I wouldn't suggest a teleconverter beyond 1.4x, because: the 2x loses
quality substantially, and you lose autofocus (5.6 is the highest for
the small Canons).
Another idea would be to try the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX, which is nearly
the same price as the Canon 70-200/4L, and gives a bit higher image
quality, and one stop higher speed (double light can enter the lens).
Minus is the higher weight.
The Canon 70-200/2.8 (old model) is a bit pricey compared to the Sigma,
while the 70-200/2.8L IS (Image Stabilizer) is wonderful, but very
pricey.

Other telephoto zooms could be:
- Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS Rather nice (you may not like the
trombone-like zoom, and some people seem to think it lets easily dust
into the sensor in DSLRs), while some complain about soft images at the
telephoto end (it seems there's some sample variation).
- Sigma 100-300/4 EX. Rather nice lens (a bit heavy), it *may* work
well.
- Canon EF-S 70-300 DO IS. I wasn't very impressed by the low light
gathering capability (minimum aperture 5.6 at the tele end), and for the
cost... Also, it works only on DSLRs (EF-S)

The original 75-300 IS from Canon isn't all that great optically
(especially soft at the low end).

> I was going to attend the Decision Making course at the local college,
> but I couldn't make my mind up whether to go on a Tuesday or a
> Wednesday. :-)

That was good.
In order to decide for yourself, I would suggest you go into a shop and
try for yourself these lenses. Only *you* can decide if the weight is an
important consideration for you.
And handling is something subjective.
The 350D is too small/light for some of these lenses (e.g. the
70-200/2.8) and you may not like the way their combination balances in
your hands.

Good luck,
Nick in HOT Athens
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 5:24:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <43025FE2.1724B10D@otenet.gr>, Nick Fotis <nfotis@otenet.gr>
writes
>Peter Twydell wrote:
>
>> That's quite a shot for that distance. You're either very young and
>> haven't started drinking yet, or are ODing on the Beta blockers!
>>
>> Current thinking is for a 70-200 L USM, plus a Canon 2x extender. After
>> dinner it might be a 75-300 USM IS, though. Then there's still the
>> Sigma...
>
>Personally, I *love* the L lenses, and I would second the recommendation
>for the 70-200/4L (which is very nice).
>I wouldn't suggest a teleconverter beyond 1.4x, because: the 2x loses
>quality substantially, and you lose autofocus (5.6 is the highest for
>the small Canons).
>Another idea would be to try the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX, which is nearly
>the same price as the Canon 70-200/4L, and gives a bit higher image
>quality, and one stop higher speed (double light can enter the lens).
>Minus is the higher weight.
>The Canon 70-200/2.8 (old model) is a bit pricey compared to the Sigma,
>while the 70-200/2.8L IS (Image Stabilizer) is wonderful, but very
>pricey.
>
>Other telephoto zooms could be:
>- Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS Rather nice (you may not like the
>trombone-like zoom, and some people seem to think it lets easily dust
>into the sensor in DSLRs), while some complain about soft images at the
>telephoto end (it seems there's some sample variation).
>- Sigma 100-300/4 EX. Rather nice lens (a bit heavy), it *may* work
>well.
>- Canon EF-S 70-300 DO IS. I wasn't very impressed by the low light
>gathering capability (minimum aperture 5.6 at the tele end), and for the
>cost... Also, it works only on DSLRs (EF-S)
>
>The original 75-300 IS from Canon isn't all that great optically
>(especially soft at the low end).
>
>> I was going to attend the Decision Making course at the local college,
>> but I couldn't make my mind up whether to go on a Tuesday or a
>> Wednesday. :-)
>
>That was good.
>In order to decide for yourself, I would suggest you go into a shop and
>try for yourself these lenses. Only *you* can decide if the weight is an
>important consideration for you.
>And handling is something subjective.
>The 350D is too small/light for some of these lenses (e.g. the
>70-200/2.8) and you may not like the way their combination balances in
>your hands.
>
>Good luck,
>Nick in HOT Athens

Well, I did it differently in the end. After talking to one or two
people about their Canon lenses, I met a chap with a Sigma 50-500. Found
a s/h HSM version (not on ebay) for GBP 499, including a UV filter.
Normal UK price is getting on for GBP 900, so I reckon that price was
good, especially considering what an 86mm UV filter must cost.

I know it's big and heavy, but then so am I*, so here's to next year's
airshow season, not to mention the birds on the feeders in our garden.

Thanks to everyone for their input, anyway.

Just remembered: no instructions! Anyone got a spare set or a copy?

*Think Martin Johnson, but less scary, well-off, skilful, talented, etc.
And a lot older!
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 5:24:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <fM7wLuGgmGEDFw0+@ntlworld.com>, Peter Twydell
<peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Well, I did it differently in the end. After talking to one or two
> people about their Canon lenses, I met a chap with a Sigma 50-500. Found
> a s/h HSM version (not on ebay) for GBP 499, including a UV filter.
> Normal UK price is getting on for GBP 900, so I reckon that price was
> good, especially considering what an 86mm UV filter must cost.

That long of a zoom range is sure to involve some heavy optical
compromises. And with the Sigma name attached...save your money and buy
something better.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 9:46:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

200/2.8
2x
!