new lenses

[vrocious]

ok so i'm chasing some new lenses, one is a big lens, got the 90-300 but want something a bit more so i dont have to be so close to people when i'm hiding to take photos of them at the beach. any suggestions? i'm liking the sigma 50-500mm http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Sigma-50-500mm-F4-6-3-APO-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-50-500-f-4-6-3_W0QQitemZ120329737543QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAU_Camer as_Photographic_Accessories?hash=item120329737543&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2|65%3A1|39%3A1|240%3A1318

then i'm chasing down a fish eye. have absolutely no idea on this, what am i looking for and what have you got/recommend?

oh it's for my 400d

[Sleepy]

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/51/sigma-lens.jpg
Not exactly discreet.

[cplagz]

90-300 is a rubbish lense (sorry)

I wouldnt bother with a 50-500mm either

Save up, buy a 70-200mm F4 IS USM and a 1.4x or 2.0x extender.

[DRKWRX]

50-500 is a prety decent lens but I would go with a 100-400mm I.S. L I had one and it was a nice lens good zoom range and sharp, but upgraded it too a 300mm 2.8 I.S.

[vrocious]

what brand makes the 100-400?
i also heard stay away from the extenders as they deteriorate the image quality quite bad?

[DRKWRX]

Canon makes the 100-400mm I.S. L, It depends what lenses you use extenders with, they will deteriate the images more on a zoom lens then a Prime, I use a 1.4extender on the 300mm prime and it doesnt lose any quality but with the 2x you will lose a bit.

[ELUSIV]

Any super zoom is generally weak, the 50-500 is no different, its pretty soft in a lot of its range.

Like Marc said get a 70-200 and a teleconverter, if you can afford it an f2.8 version if not the f4 version.

Lens reviews:

www.slrgear.com
www.photozone.de

[DRKWRX]

thats not gonna be as sharp as a 100-400 at 400 though, says he wants more zoom then the 300, also the 70-200 f/4 will lose Auto focus with a 2x extender, it will be a 400mm f/8

[ELUSIV]

The weakest point of almost any zoom is usually at the long end i.e. at 400mm.
In order to get the sharpest images at say 400mm you would need to be stopping down to f8-f11 on the 100-400. Its variable aperture design also doesnt help, if you were doing anything in low light the 100-400 cant go below f4.5 to f5.6 depending on where the zoom is at. The 70-200 f2.8 is much more suitable for low light applications and even with a TC due to its better image quality (usually a characteristic of fixed aperture zooms) it wont need to be stopped down as much as the 100-400 and it probably will still outshine it for sharpness as most have reported that between 300-400 on the 100-400 lens it isnt really that sharp and stopping down only helps it marginally.

[ELUSIV]

Other option is a 300mm prime and 1.4x TC, that would probably be the best possible for achieving a decent 400mm image quality without spending a fortune on the 400mm prime.

[DRKWRX]

I disagree I found my 100-400mm to be sharp at 400mm at 6.3, 300 2.8 or 4? 300mm f/4 with 1.4extender would be prety good, my 2.8 is sharpest lens Ive used I rekon its top 3 best canon lenses made, the 100-400 is a lens you gotta get used to.

heres whole thread of shots with 100-400 taken at 400mm, third page shows what it can do in right hands.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=296547

[ELUSIV]

thats not gonna be as sharp as a 100-400 at 400 though, says he wants more zoom then the 300, also the 70-200 f/4 will lose Auto focus with a 2x extender, it will be a 400mm f/8

It wont be a 400mm f8. A teleconverter only reduces the stops by 1 (for a 1.4x) or 2 (for a 2x). So if you had the 70-200 f2.8 then you could have f4 at 400mm. The advantage of the 70-200 f2.8 though is that you can take the TC off and have a fixed aperture lens that has pro image quality and can be used for low light events. Apparently the 2x is fairly decent on the 70-400 f4L:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=29676377

A 300 f2.8 prime is usually always a winner, its a favourite for Canon as well as Nikon owners as they are fast, sharp handle TC's well and generally are pretty good value for money.
At the end of the day its going to be about the $$, the 70-200 f2.8 is a couple of hundred dollars more but gives greater flexibility and top notch pro quality glass as well as a low fixed aperture design.

Not saying the 100-400 isnt good, in fact it is great, but there advantages and disadvantages of every lens. While that gallery shows a lot of good shots even the owners admit you need to stop down and therefore need a lot of light to get a decent shutter speed. Shooting at f8-f11 (to get the sharpness seen in most of those shots) isnt always an option especially if you need a fast shutter speed.

[DRKWRX]

I was talkin about extender on 70-200 f/4 :D , but yeah in the end any canon L glass is good in my opinion, Im happy with all of mine haha I dont really bother reading too much about the crap on the forums, Like I bought a 50mm 1.2 and im happy with it although theres heaps of bashing on the forums about it, I agree with what you are saying, outdoors in bright light 100-400mm but if you wanna shoot some low light stuff indoor sports n stuff aswell 70-200 with extender would be better.

[cplagz]

300mm f2.8 whilst is a great lens ..... there's not a heap you can do with it

at least a 70-200mm and 1.4x or 2.0x converter give you some range flexibility .... but hey, if money was no object id have a 600mm prime LOL

[cplagz]

LOL, i just read that thread on DPReview .... dude using the 70-200mm F/4 with stacked teleconverters (1.4 and 2.0) .... handheld 840mm zoom

[cplagz]

Now the question is .... Where to buy the lenses from?

Cheapest I've found the 70-200 F/4L IS USM is $1400

[DRKWRX]

not a heap you can do with 300? serious? 300mm is prety versitile and you have a 440mm f/4 and 600mm 5.6 with extenders, no image quality loss with the 1.4 and only tiny bit with the 2x., every lens has its purpose though is why my money is always gone :D

300mm 2.8 1/100! handheld.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/willophotography/2425313010/sizes/o/

[ELUSIV]

I was talkin about extender on 70-200 f/4 :D , but yeah in the end any canon L glass is good in my opinion, Im happy with all of mine haha I dont really bother reading too much about the crap on the forums, Like I bought a 50mm 1.2 and im happy with it although theres heaps of bashing on the forums about it, I agree with what you are saying, outdoors in bright light 100-400mm but if you wanna shoot some low light stuff indoor sports n stuff aswell 70-200 with extender would be better.

The f4 with a 2x TC would make it an f5.6 tho :P hehe

300mm f2.8 primes are awesome, great for wildlife (not birds), im assuming the Canon is as well regarded as the Nikon, here are some photos that do the Nikon 300mm f2.8 justice (NOT mine):

http://gnagel.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p783131404-5.jpg
http://gnagel.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p921232964-5.jpg
http://gnagel.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p938944544-5.jpg
http://gnagel.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p916327422-5.jpg

His homepage: http://gnagel.zenfolio.com/

[cplagz]

not a heap you can do with 300? serious? 300mm is prety versitile and you have a 440mm f/4 and 600mm 5.6 with extenders, no image quality loss with the 1.4 and only tiny bit with the 2x., every lens has its purpose though is why my money is always gone :D

300mm 2.8 1/100! handheld.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/willophotography/2425313010/sizes/o/
prob misinterpreting what i mean .... a 70-200 gives someone on a tighter budget more of a range to be able to take shots in ..... the 300 2.8 is a TOP lense .... one id add to my arsenal if I could justify it! (see the 600mm quote LOL)

[DRKWRX]

nah mate f/4 with 1.4x will be 5.6, f/4 with 2x will make it f/8, yeah the reason I bought the 300mm 2.8 was because im planning on goin back to africa somtime soon and its not too huge and with the extenders your better off then a 400 2.8 or 600mm 5.6

[ELUSIV]

nah mate f/4 with 1.4x will be 5.6, f/4 with 2x will make it f/8, yeah the reason I bought the 300mm 2.8 was because im planning on goin back to africa somtime soon and its not too huge and with the extenders your better off then a 400 2.8 or 600mm 5.6

haha i think you are getting it confused, a 1.4x doesnt mean the f-stops are multiplied by 1.4 or 2 for a 2x. With a 1.4x you lose 1 f-stop, so f4 with a 1.4x will become an f4.5. An f4 with a 2x will become an f5.6.

[DRKWRX]

hah not confused at all mate

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41922

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1339/img9638hn0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

just chucked 1.4x on 300 2.8 on my camera and lowest aperture is f/4 thats a stop and with 2x you lose 2 stops :D a stop isnt a consistant number.

[esky]

100-400 FTW

mines crisp at 400mm, i mates was soft, sent it back to canon to get checked, came back better then mine

here's a photo of mine from the clipsal 500. late in the day, overcast under a tree so it pretty dark @ 400mm.

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh267/Fordesky/IMG_2009.jpg

push pull zoom takes a bit to get used to but i quite like it now.

[vrocious]

ok so looks like i'l just look into an extender

what about fish eye lenses though? anybody got one?

[ELUSIV]

hah not confused at all mate

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41922

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1339/img9638hn0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

just chucked 1.4x on 300 2.8 on my camera and lowest aperture is f/4 thats a stop and with 2x you lose 2 stops :D a stop isnt a consistant number.

Ah sorry you are right, seems i was confused, i was reading info on the Nikon TC17E at the time which is a 1.7x and is 1.5 stops roughly.
I was including half-stops not full-stops haha my mistake! Sorry dude :)

Im not a huge fan of fish-eyes, very limited usability, but you'd have to ask the Canon guys about what options there are. Most people that buy them dont really use them very often though.

[V70R]

If anyone has a 10-22mm L for Canon EFS mount for sale please let me know.

[Cake]

If anyone has a 10-22mm L for Canon EFS mount for sale please let me know.
They aren't L's dude. No EF-S lenses are L's either. :)

[esky]

i'm after a 10-22 as well

found this while reading reviews. gives a great impression of how wide this lense really is

http://www.pbase.com/image/71828237/large.jpg

[[FFOUR]]

Yeah I have a 10-22, VERY wide. I get funny looks sometimes when I'm right up close to a car and tell the owner I still have the whole car in the frame!

[Cake]

Haha yeah I actually bumped into my cat with the lens hood when taking a shot of it when I first got this lens. It's very deceiving as to how close you are to the subject when looking through the viewfinder at 10mm. Lens hood definitely comes in handy! One of my favourite lenses.