advice on tele-zoom needed

Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But now
i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
IS, but....

Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are supposley
much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
live without it, or not?

So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses, i'd be
gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about top price
i could afford right now...

Second thing is - in future i will need an additional flash, so again here
are two models- -Canon 430Ex or Sigma EF-500 DG - it seems there are two
models - ST and SUP - whatever difference is--- so, which one to choose,
since price is similar, while sigma is somewhat stronger?
THX

"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in message
...
Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
now
i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
IS, but....

Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
supposley
much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
live without it, or not?

Not if you are planning on hand-holding your lenses. Those are serious
monsters that require a strong sturdy tripod. (The Sigma gets good reviews.)

The Canon is a different beast altogether.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...is_review.html

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...s_review2.html

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in message
...
Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
now
i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
IS, but....

Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
supposley
much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
live without it, or not?

Not if you are planning on hand-holding your lenses. Those are serious
monsters that require a strong sturdy tripod. (The Sigma gets good
reviews.)

The Canon is a different beast altogether.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...is_review.html

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...s_review2.html

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


yep, they are monsters, sure. Also IS on Canon is temptating...since i've
had S2 IS, i already know the benefits of it.It's just---is it worthed...i
mean, since IS itself costs quite a lot, the means that overall lens quality
is quite average (Canon one, i mean). So buying Sigma or Tokina would give
better quality, but sure, also limited use...
oh, well---

Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in message
...

Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
now
i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
IS, but....

Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
supposley
much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
live without it, or not?

Not if you are planning on hand-holding your lenses. Those are serious
monsters that require a strong sturdy tripod. (The Sigma gets good
reviews.)

The Canon is a different beast altogether.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...is_review.html

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...s_review2.html

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



yep, they are monsters, sure. Also IS on Canon is temptating...since i've
had S2 IS, i already know the benefits of it.It's just---is it worthed...i
mean, since IS itself costs quite a lot, the means that overall lens quality
is quite average (Canon one, i mean). So buying Sigma or Tokina would give
better quality, but sure, also limited use...
oh, well---


Another thing to look at is the minimum focusing distance.
I have Sigma lenses (no longer used), and find them generally
good (at least the ones I have bought). But I find something
is compromised to get a simpler design at a lower cost.
Often that is closest focusing distance. So then when
you get close to a subject, like an animal, you find you can't
focus. Some 3rd party lenses may also weigh more than their brand
name counterparts.

Personally, I won't buy another lens, especially telephoto,
without IS.

If you want quality, you'll find with the small pixels of the 30D
you'll need fixed focus lenses. Zooms are generally softer, and
large range zooms even softer, especially when you get 10x zooms.
I recommend going fixed lenses. For example, I found the Canon
100-400 L IS too soft and switched to a 300 f/4 L IS. The 300
is cheaper and much better image quality than my 100-400,
even at 420 mm (with a 1.x4 TC). I also have a Sigma 170-500
and it is sharper than the Canon 100-400, but not as good as the
300 f/4.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in message
...

Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
now
i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them
have
IS, but....

Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
supposley
much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
live without it, or not?

Not if you are planning on hand-holding your lenses. Those are serious
monsters that require a strong sturdy tripod. (The Sigma gets good
reviews.)

The Canon is a different beast altogether.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...is_review.html

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...s_review2.html

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



yep, they are monsters, sure. Also IS on Canon is temptating...since i've
had S2 IS, i already know the benefits of it.It's just---is it
worthed...i mean, since IS itself costs quite a lot, the means that
overall lens quality is quite average (Canon one, i mean). So buying
Sigma or Tokina would give better quality, but sure, also limited use...
oh, well---


Another thing to look at is the minimum focusing distance.
I have Sigma lenses (no longer used), and find them generally
good (at least the ones I have bought). But I find something
is compromised to get a simpler design at a lower cost.
Often that is closest focusing distance. So then when
you get close to a subject, like an animal, you find you can't
focus. Some 3rd party lenses may also weigh more than their brand
name counterparts.

Personally, I won't buy another lens, especially telephoto,
without IS.

If you want quality, you'll find with the small pixels of the 30D
you'll need fixed focus lenses. Zooms are generally softer, and
large range zooms even softer, especially when you get 10x zooms.
I recommend going fixed lenses. For example, I found the Canon
100-400 L IS too soft and switched to a 300 f/4 L IS. The 300
is cheaper and much better image quality than my 100-400,
even at 420 mm (with a 1.x4 TC). I also have a Sigma 170-500
and it is sharper than the Canon 100-400, but not as good as the
300 f/4.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

i see. Well, i guess in this case i'd need some not too expensive zoom lens
for general purpose, which in my case is Canon. Then when i'll see the need,
i'll get one by one some fixed focus lenses (when my budget allows).

Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But now
i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
IS, but....

Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are supposley
much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
live without it, or not?

So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses, i'd be
gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about top price
i could afford right now...

If you think you need 400mm or 500mm, start asking yourself why you want
a zoom. You can get a fixed-length 400 or 500 for about the same cost,
and it's likely better quality (I say likely because while I wish I had
more experience with such lenses, I don't).

I'm in a similar predicament, and I think I'm going to go with an
off-brand fixed-length, unless I can find a used Pentax.

"Paul Mitchum" wrote in message
...
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So, i
wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now. But
now
i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of them have
IS, but....

Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
supposley
much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i guess i could
live without it, or not?

So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses, i'd
be
gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about top
price
i could afford right now...

If you think you need 400mm or 500mm, start asking yourself why you want
a zoom. You can get a fixed-length 400 or 500 for about the same cost,
and it's likely better quality (I say likely because while I wish I had
more experience with such lenses, I don't).

I'm in a similar predicament, and I think I'm going to go with an
off-brand fixed-length, unless I can find a used Pentax.

that is what i start to ask myself. I'd say that 300 is quite enough for a
general use lens, while for anything more pro, fixed one would be the one,
right ?

Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

"Paul Mitchum" wrote in message
...
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

Since i have 30D with 17-85IS, i wanted to get one tele-zoom lens. So,
i wanted to buy 70-300 IS USM, since i can't afford DO or L right now.
But now i found out two models which i need your advice on - Neither of
them have IS, but....

Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 or Tokina 80-400 F4.5-5.6 Both of them are
supposley much better than Canon one...sure, they lack of IS, but, i
guess i could live without it, or not?

So if anyone have any experiences or knowledge of these two lenses, i'd
be gratefull if could write some words of advice. That sigma is about
top price i could afford right now...

If you think you need 400mm or 500mm, start asking yourself why you want
a zoom. You can get a fixed-length 400 or 500 for about the same cost,
and it's likely better quality (I say likely because while I wish I had
more experience with such lenses, I don't).

I'm in a similar predicament, and I think I'm going to go with an
off-brand fixed-length, unless I can find a used Pentax.

that is what i start to ask myself. I'd say that 300 is quite enough for a
general use lens, while for anything more pro, fixed one would be the one,
right ?

Well, it all depends. :-)

If you see yourself needing to change focal lengths without changing
lenses, then get the zoom.

I was thinking I might get the Sigma 170-500 or the 135-400, but I
figured I'd just be using the longest length all the time anyway. So why
not get the fixed length? If you have a different set of needs, then get
a zoom.

Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

i see. Well, i guess in this case i'd need some not too expensive zoom lens
for general purpose, which in my case is Canon. Then when i'll see the need,
i'll get one by one some fixed focus lenses (when my budget allows).

You might also consider buying a L lens used.

Roger

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

i see. Well, i guess in this case i'd need some not too expensive zoom
lens for general purpose, which in my case is Canon. Then when i'll see
the need, i'll get one by one some fixed focus lenses (when my budget
allows).

You might also consider buying a L lens used.

Roger
i thought of that, too...i'll look around thanks