Newbie lense question

Hi-

We finally made the step up from a digital point-n-shoot to a Canon Digital
Rebel this weekend. This first upgrade that we clearly need is a telephoto
lense in the 70-200 or 70-300 range. It appears that Canon, Tamron, and
Quantaray all sell 70-300mm telephoto, non-IS lenses for around $150 retail.
I've done a little bit of googling, and it appears that not everyone who has
bought a Canon EF 70-300 has been terribly happy with it. I've seen some
comments alluding to the fact that it may not be usable above 200mm, even
with a tripod.

So I'm interested in whether anyone can offer any opinions on how the
inexpensive telephoto lenses from these manuafacturers compare, and whether
any one is noticably better than the other. We are strictly amateur
picture-takers - may main interest in having a telephoto lense will be able
to take moderatly long-distant pics of my kids playing sports outdoors. For
this, I will generally use a mono-pole intead of a tripod.

Thanks,

-dm

So I'm interested in whether anyone can offer any opinions on how the
inexpensive telephoto lenses from these manuafacturers compare, and
whether any one is noticably better than the other. We are strictly
amateur picture-takers - may main interest in having a telephoto lense
will be able to take moderatly long-distant pics of my kids playing sports
outdoors. For this, I will generally use a mono-pole intead of a tripod.

Here is a link to a shot taken with a Canon 75-300 IS lens at full zoom:

http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1056.jpg

I also have the big and heavy and expensive Canon 100-400 L lens and have
shot test (using a tripod) pictures with both lenses at 300 mm. The L glass
is indeed noticeably sharper, but not so much so that most folks would
notice. When I bought the L lens, I intended to sell the 75-300 ... but
after hefting the L lens and comparing shots, I kept the 75-300 ... it's a
lens that I can walk around with and still get some good wildlife shots.

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
. ..


So I'm interested in whether anyone can offer any opinions on how the
inexpensive telephoto lenses from these manuafacturers compare, and
whether any one is noticably better than the other. We are strictly
amateur picture-takers - may main interest in having a telephoto lense
will be able to take moderatly long-distant pics of my kids playing
sports outdoors. For this, I will generally use a mono-pole intead of a
tripod.

Here is a link to a shot taken with a Canon 75-300 IS lens at full zoom:

http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1056.jpg

I also have the big and heavy and expensive Canon 100-400 L lens and have
shot test (using a tripod) pictures with both lenses at 300 mm. The L
glass is indeed noticeably sharper, but not so much so that most folks
would notice. When I bought the L lens, I intended to sell the 75-300 ...
but after hefting the L lens and comparing shots, I kept the 75-300 ...
it's a lens that I can walk around with and still get some good wildlife
shots.

Thanks, but I'm not really looking at the image-stabalization option. After
just investing $700 in the camera, it would be an impossible sell to the
wife. I had already prepared her for "about $150" in further expense... so
that's probably it! So I'm probably stuck doing the best I can with a non-IS
telephoto lense and the monopole. Which makes me wonder whether 300mm is
even realistic, maybe I should only get a xx-200mm zoom?

Amazon is currently offering a Sigma 70-300 F/4-5.6 (which I gather is the
same as a Quantaray) for $120, so right at the moment I'm leaning in that
direction....

Thanks,

-dm

"Dennis McCrohan" wrote in message
...

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
. ..


So I'm interested in whether anyone can offer any opinions on how the
inexpensive telephoto lenses from these manuafacturers compare, and
whether any one is noticably better than the other. We are strictly
amateur picture-takers - may main interest in having a telephoto lense
will be able to take moderatly long-distant pics of my kids playing
sports outdoors. For this, I will generally use a mono-pole intead of a
tripod.

Here is a link to a shot taken with a Canon 75-300 IS lens at full zoom:

http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1056.jpg

I also have the big and heavy and expensive Canon 100-400 L lens and have
shot test (using a tripod) pictures with both lenses at 300 mm. The L
glass is indeed noticeably sharper, but not so much so that most folks
would notice. When I bought the L lens, I intended to sell the 75-300
... but after hefting the L lens and comparing shots, I kept the 75-300
... it's a lens that I can walk around with and still get some good
wildlife shots.

Thanks, but I'm not really looking at the image-stabalization option.
After just investing $700 in the camera, it would be an impossible sell to
the wife. I had already prepared her for "about $150" in further
expense... so that's probably it! So I'm probably stuck doing the best I
can with a non-IS telephoto lense and the monopole. Which makes me wonder
whether 300mm is even realistic, maybe I should only get a xx-200mm zoom?

Amazon is currently offering a Sigma 70-300 F/4-5.6 (which I gather is the
same as a Quantaray) for $120, so right at the moment I'm leaning in that
direction....

Thanks,

-dm


Take a good look at the EF 80-200 II. While not as long as the 75-300mm,
Canon's own MTF charts show it is sharper at the longest zoom setting. It is
much smaller, lighter and through reliable mail order, it is in the $110
price range.

John

Dennis McCrohan wrote:
snip
I've done a little bit of googling, and it appears that not everyone who has
bought a Canon EF 70-300 has been terribly happy with it. I've seen some
comments alluding to the fact that it may not be usable above 200mm, even
with a tripod.

So I'm interested in whether anyone can offer any opinions on how the
inexpensive telephoto lenses from these manuafacturers compare
snip

With lenses, just like everything else, you tend to get what you pay
for. That does not mean a cheap lens is unusable. It does mean that it
is just not going to be as sharp when you blow the picture up large as
a better lens, or it will have more distortion, or it will not be as
fast, etc.

I would not worry too much about what people may say about a lens on
Google. The Internet is full of 'experts' who do not take very many
pictures but who seem to have all the time in the world to look for
tiny imperfections in camera equipment. When I was doing triathlon, we
used to say that there are gearheads, and there are people who ride. It
is the same in photography. Take pictures, and let others worry about
what gear you are using. In fact, I would be taking pictures right now
if I was not stuck in the office.

That said, sometimes you will need some capability not provided by your
current gear. Fine. Go wherever your artistic muse leads you. If you
are really worried about the 70-300mm lens, try one. Take pictures with
it and see what it does. If you hate it, don't buy it.

We bought the Tamron 28-300, and are very pleased with it. We've had
several Tamrons in the past. Only thing I don't like about the 28-300
is that the zoom mechanism is very free/loose. It does have a zoom lock,
but it is a pain to have to relock it constantly as you adjust zoom. If
you tilt camera down without the zoom locked, the lens extends!

In addition to mfgs, even within the same mfg some lenses are better
than others, so it is a hard job picking really topnotch lenses, but the
major brands are generally satisfactory unless you have umpteen Mp, or
are shooting plus-X in dilute developer.


Dennis McCrohan wrote:
Hi-

We finally made the step up from a digital point-n-shoot to a Canon Digital
Rebel this weekend. This first upgrade that we clearly need is a telephoto
lense in the 70-200 or 70-300 range. It appears that Canon, Tamron, and
Quantaray all sell 70-300mm telephoto, non-IS lenses for around $150 retail.
I've done a little bit of googling, and it appears that not everyone who has
bought a Canon EF 70-300 has been terribly happy with it. I've seen some
comments alluding to the fact that it may not be usable above 200mm, even
with a tripod.

So I'm interested in whether anyone can offer any opinions on how the
inexpensive telephoto lenses from these manuafacturers compare, and whether
any one is noticably better than the other. We are strictly amateur
picture-takers - may main interest in having a telephoto lense will be able
to take moderatly long-distant pics of my kids playing sports outdoors. For
this, I will generally use a mono-pole intead of a tripod.

Thanks,

-dm

"Dennis McCrohan" wrote:
So I'm interested in whether anyone can offer any opinions on how the
inexpensive telephoto lenses from these manuafacturers compare, and whether
any one is noticably better than the other. We are strictly amateur
picture-takers - may main interest in having a telephoto lense will be able
to take moderatly long-distant pics of my kids playing sports outdoors. For
this, I will generally use a mono-pole intead of a tripod.

So far I've only seen one response mention a tripod. Get one.
The sturdier the better. Unfortunately a lightweight tripod
that is sturdy is going to cost more than the lenses you are
looking at. You might consider something that isn't so light if
it is possible. E.g., old 17 pound Majestic tripods are
inexpensive and stable as a rock. You can put an inexpensive
ball head on top of one and have a very versatile platform that
can only be beat with significantly more expensive equipment.

When you shop for lenses, since your subjects are 1) children,
and 2) sports, you will find auto-focus to be indispensible.
Some lenses are faster, less noisy, and more accurate than
others. Make that one parameter to evaluate with any lense you
are considering.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)