In a nutshell, higher numbers mean more magnification.
The 75-300 will zoom "closer" than 70-200. But at it's least "zoomed," the 70mm will have slightly more in the frame.
One isn't necessarily better.
In a nutshell, higher numbers mean more magnification.
The 75-300 will zoom "closer" than 70-200. But at it's least "zoomed," the 70mm will have slightly more in the frame.
One isn't necessarily better.
It can be through a number of factors, aka different f-stops, sharpness, coating, barrel distortion, etc. You have to compare the specific lenses and the pictures they take, some of the difference like sharpness is going to be very subjective.
NutBucket
Lifer
- Aug 30, 2000
- 27,154
- 635
- 126
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=206436&is=USA
Add that along with the lens and you're golden
Add that along with the lens and you're golden
This thread is perfect, I am looking for a new lens for my Canon Elan 7. I'm going to Hong Kong next week, I've heard that you can purchase lenses over there cheaper than you could here in states. Does anyone know if this is true or not? I'll probably pick up the 75-300USM lens over there if its cheap. What would be a good price for that?
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
The 70-200 f4 lens is a faster lens. Better quality than the 75-300mm. Basically, it will let in more light allowing you more flexibility in capturing shots.
Also, the 70-200 will not rotate when zooming allowing you to use a circular polarizer.
I actually have this lens and have shot some incredible pictures with it. I would highly recommend it over the 75-300mm lens.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Nutbucket, i'm going to get that 420 speedlite
and I'm going to get the Sigma 70-300mm APO (Version 2) lense
and I'm going to get the Sigma 70-300mm APO (Version 2) lense
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
I would recommend the Canon brand lens over the Sigma. I found the Sigma to be cheaply constructed and noisier. The Canon lens focuses faster and much quieter, less hunting. I don't know what the difference in price is but I've tried the clone lenses and been generally disappointed with them compared to the name brand lenses.
I have a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 for Canon EOS camera though if anyone is interested. There is nothing wrong with it and it comes with two filters (UV and polarizer), lens caps and a hood. I bought a smaller, slower Canon zoom to replace it so I don't need this lens. This is not a cheap lens though, nor is it small. I think it weighs about 1.5 lbs. In fact, here's a link to the lens.
Anubis
No Lifer
i have the 24-70 on a nikon mount and its nice, and it weighs more then 1.5lbs it is a beast
24mm is really nice tho
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Yeah, it feels more like 2.5lbs (it says 1.54lbs on the BH Photo link though).
The size of it makes the on camera flash pretty much useless and it takes a freakin' 82mm filter.
I'm using a Canon 24-85mm on my Elan 7 right now. I may do some comparison shots before I get rid of the Sigma. I just don't like lugging it around. Especially, when I'm carrying the 70-200mm f4 lens and a flash along with it and the battery pack grip.
Gooberlx2
Lifer
- May 4, 2001
- 15,381
- 6
- 91
looking into the 75-300 ef USM IS f4.5-5.6 would certainly be worth the extra $100, IMHO. The IS will help tremendously, esp at the long end of the range. It really does work and it really is like getting 1.5-2 stops back. I think it's on the order of $400.
at the 1.6 factor it's like having a 120-480mm zoom...meaning the IS is all that much more important/helpful.
bhphotovideo has it here
at the 1.6 factor it's like having a 120-480mm zoom...meaning the IS is all that much more important/helpful.
bhphotovideo has it here
Garion
Platinum Member
- Apr 23, 2001
- 2,331
- 7
- 81
I've been researching the same thing for my 35mm Rebel. A couple of notes..
The 75-300 lenses are big, and their "minimum zoom" is more zoomed in at it's widest setting than the lens that came with your digital rebel when it's all the way zoomed out. This could result in them needing to switch lenses to take pictures of something close up, which can be a pain and a good way to scratch things or introduce dust.
From what I've been reading, anything above about 200-250mm can often get blurry if you don't hold your camera very still or use a tripod, especially if you're taking the pic at slower shutter speeds (Lower light conditions, in general). Canon makes a 75-300 lens that has image stabilization, but it's $400+ new.
Someone mentioned it, but didn't really call it out - Putting a lens on a digital camera results in a LOT more zoom - I thin someone mentioned it - A 300mm lense becomes, to a digital camera, a 450mm lens. Think of that as ~6X the magnification over stock.
Sigma makes a "hyperzoom" series of lenses - They go from 28-200 or 28-300. They are physicallly probably about the same size as your existing lens with all the zoom. No need for messing with changing lenses all the time, depending if you want something close up or far away. The 28-200 would probably be a good choice. It would work out to be something like 45-300mm effective on the digital camera, you wouldn't have to change it out much and it's not too expensive at around $180. Should be fine for the general enthusiast who wants to take some volcano pictures or snapshots of the girl in the grass skirt from across the room.
Mandatory caveat: I'm not a real camera guy, but I've done a lot of the research and this seems to be what I've found works for me. If others with more real-word experience disagree, I'd believe them.
- G
The 75-300 lenses are big, and their "minimum zoom" is more zoomed in at it's widest setting than the lens that came with your digital rebel when it's all the way zoomed out. This could result in them needing to switch lenses to take pictures of something close up, which can be a pain and a good way to scratch things or introduce dust.
From what I've been reading, anything above about 200-250mm can often get blurry if you don't hold your camera very still or use a tripod, especially if you're taking the pic at slower shutter speeds (Lower light conditions, in general). Canon makes a 75-300 lens that has image stabilization, but it's $400+ new.
Someone mentioned it, but didn't really call it out - Putting a lens on a digital camera results in a LOT more zoom - I thin someone mentioned it - A 300mm lense becomes, to a digital camera, a 450mm lens. Think of that as ~6X the magnification over stock.
Sigma makes a "hyperzoom" series of lenses - They go from 28-200 or 28-300. They are physicallly probably about the same size as your existing lens with all the zoom. No need for messing with changing lenses all the time, depending if you want something close up or far away. The 28-200 would probably be a good choice. It would work out to be something like 45-300mm effective on the digital camera, you wouldn't have to change it out much and it's not too expensive at around $180. Should be fine for the general enthusiast who wants to take some volcano pictures or snapshots of the girl in the grass skirt from across the room.
Mandatory caveat: I'm not a real camera guy, but I've done a lot of the research and this seems to be what I've found works for me. If others with more real-word experience disagree, I'd believe them.
- G
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Read the reviews on those hyperzoom lenses. Most people, those that know what they are talking about anyway, don't regard them well at either end of the range. Soft, grainy pictures and poor or hunting autofocus seems to be a common complaint with these lenses.
I've never had scratched or dropped a lens while changing lenses. I keep a UV filter on all my lenses all the time and lens caps are always on my lenses when not in use. Changing lenses is not really a big deal IMO.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
BTW-That is the lens I have, not the 24-85mm one. My mistake. I'm not at home where my camera is and they look similar. Mine is the IS 28-135mm EF lens though.
Is IS on the Canon 75-300 really worth the $200 over the same Sigma lense w/o IS.
Oh yeah, is BH photo a good/reliable place to buy lenses from?
Oh yeah, is BH photo a good/reliable place to buy lenses from?
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
I just bought a Canon Digital Rebel from B&H Photo. Picked up the camera body only for $699 after $100 mail in rebate from Canon. I buy all my photo gear from them. Man, that 300D takes nice pictures!
edro
Lifer
- Apr 5, 2002
- 24,326
- 68
- 91
I have the Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro II and it works great. Be advised though, ANY zoom lense @200-300mm or more will tend to blur unless you have adequete light or a tripod. The Canon IS lenses combat this a little, but not very much from what I read on DPReview. I really like the kit lense though.
For portraits and indoor, the 50mm f1.4 totally rocks. It is stuck at 50mm (which is very close to actual vision 1:1), which kind of sucks, but at f1.4, you can take awesome pics.
For portraits and indoor, the 50mm f1.4 totally rocks. It is stuck at 50mm (which is very close to actual vision 1:1), which kind of sucks, but at f1.4, you can take awesome pics.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter