Ramblings and questions about lenses (EOS)

Go with a Canon. The 75-300 is the best of those you mention or the 100-300
which is optically no better but has the convienience of full time manual
focus. At those prices for the best optically in that range you would be
wasting money on the others.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Lukasz Grabun" wrote in message
...
Hi there,

this is my first post here though I've been lurking for some time.
Anyway, "hi all".

I am considering purchasing new lens; as for now, I have Canon EOS 300V
with kit lenses 28-90 (which, except distortion at short focal length,
suits me down to the ground) and think of lens of 70-300 focal length.
Here the whole story starts.

There is number of different lenses that more or less fit my needs. Let
me name them:
* Canon 75-300, no USM. Relatively cheap. Within my reach.
* Canon 90-300, designed for 300V. Also within my reach.
* Tamron 70-300, the second cheapest lens.
* Tamron 100-300, cheapest of them all.
* Sigma 70-300 AP Macro Super II, just on the edge of my financial
"capability"
* Canon 100-300. Over my abilities.

Among them Sigma has the best "press" and is regarded as pretty good
lens. Tamrons also have win one test and 70-300 was listed as a lens for
70-300 for an amateur (*who I am as well*). Canon 100-300 is best of
them all but costs 33-50% to much for me to acquire it. Unless someone
provides me a financial backup I won't be able to purchase it. Other
Canons are defined as low-medium (whatever this means, but later about
this) and are marked worse than aforementioned Sigma.

Well, let me specify my needs as well. I am an amateur and on very
beginning of my photogra phyroad.Still,IthinktheamateurIwill
remain as I do other things for living (I am IT guy). So, from time to
time, say: every weekend my wife and me will go out and take some photos
(a roll or two). Then we have them printed (printed = given the film to
lab and make it... erm, actually, how do say it in English?) at the size
of 13cm x 18 cm (which is, more or less, equal 5"x7"). Occasionally, I
guess, will be willing to have larger prints (like 15cm x 21cm, which is
6x8 inches, I think). Well, these are constraints of quality I want to
own.

Also, I've heard some rumours about Sigmas being not compatible with
Canon bodies. I tested Sigma APO II this weekend but can't really tell
if I would "trust" this lens, if you know what I mean. That's why a bit
biased towards Canon lenses as they will be 100% operational and, in the
future, thank to happy lottery win I will happen to buy another Canon
body (30? 33?) I could possible mount lenses and everything will get
along just fine. This is my concern about Sigma lens. Otherwise, it is
just great.

Tamron. I don't mind about they're a bit "slow" (I mean: dark). I have
tripod and am focusing mostly on landscapes and architecture. Time of
exposure is not the matter in this case. They're also very (read:
relatively) cheap (70-300 costs about $200 or 160 euros, more or less).
I've heard of no troubles with mounting Tamron lenses to IT Rebel bodies
(oh yes, I have American version of 300V, forgot to mention). At least
this is what the manufacturer claims. But then again, on this particular
newsgroup, I found a post about quality of Tamron lens. The guy said he
had 4"x6" prints of good sharpness and a number of 6x8 which *also* were
quite good). This is a bit of concern to me. 4x6 is one "tick" below my
requirements. To put it in a straightforward way: is Tamron good enough
for this size of prints?

If you were to chose, which would you pick? I have as much as 220 euros
and this is set in a stone. Please excuse my long winded post but I am
not willing to spend this amount of money on, sorry, ****. Thanks in
advance for answers and tips.

Lukasz Grabun

Go with a Canon. The 75-300 is the best of those you mention or the 100-300
which is optically no better but has the convienience of full time manual
focus. At those prices for the best optically in that range you would be
wasting money on the others.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Lukasz Grabun" wrote in message
...
Hi there,

this is my first post here though I've been lurking for some time.
Anyway, "hi all".

I am considering purchasing new lens; as for now, I have Canon EOS 300V
with kit lenses 28-90 (which, except distortion at short focal length,
suits me down to the ground) and think of lens of 70-300 focal length.
Here the whole story starts.

There is number of different lenses that more or less fit my needs. Let
me name them:
* Canon 75-300, no USM. Relatively cheap. Within my reach.
* Canon 90-300, designed for 300V. Also within my reach.
* Tamron 70-300, the second cheapest lens.
* Tamron 100-300, cheapest of them all.
* Sigma 70-300 AP Macro Super II, just on the edge of my financial
"capability"
* Canon 100-300. Over my abilities.

Among them Sigma has the best "press" and is regarded as pretty good
lens. Tamrons also have win one test and 70-300 was listed as a lens for
70-300 for an amateur (*who I am as well*). Canon 100-300 is best of
them all but costs 33-50% to much for me to acquire it. Unless someone
provides me a financial backup I won't be able to purchase it. Other
Canons are defined as low-medium (whatever this means, but later about
this) and are marked worse than aforementioned Sigma.

Well, let me specify my needs as well. I am an amateur and on very
beginning of my photogra phyroad.Still,IthinktheamateurIwill
remain as I do other things for living (I am IT guy). So, from time to
time, say: every weekend my wife and me will go out and take some photos
(a roll or two). Then we have them printed (printed = given the film to
lab and make it... erm, actually, how do say it in English?) at the size
of 13cm x 18 cm (which is, more or less, equal 5"x7"). Occasionally, I
guess, will be willing to have larger prints (like 15cm x 21cm, which is
6x8 inches, I think). Well, these are constraints of quality I want to
own.

Also, I've heard some rumours about Sigmas being not compatible with
Canon bodies. I tested Sigma APO II this weekend but can't really tell
if I would "trust" this lens, if you know what I mean. That's why a bit
biased towards Canon lenses as they will be 100% operational and, in the
future, thank to happy lottery win I will happen to buy another Canon
body (30? 33?) I could possible mount lenses and everything will get
along just fine. This is my concern about Sigma lens. Otherwise, it is
just great.

Tamron. I don't mind about they're a bit "slow" (I mean: dark). I have
tripod and am focusing mostly on landscapes and architecture. Time of
exposure is not the matter in this case. They're also very (read:
relatively) cheap (70-300 costs about $200 or 160 euros, more or less).
I've heard of no troubles with mounting Tamron lenses to IT Rebel bodies
(oh yes, I have American version of 300V, forgot to mention). At least
this is what the manufacturer claims. But then again, on this particular
newsgroup, I found a post about quality of Tamron lens. The guy said he
had 4"x6" prints of good sharpness and a number of 6x8 which *also* were
quite good). This is a bit of concern to me. 4x6 is one "tick" below my
requirements. To put it in a straightforward way: is Tamron good enough
for this size of prints?

If you were to chose, which would you pick? I have as much as 220 euros
and this is set in a stone. Please excuse my long winded post but I am
not willing to spend this amount of money on, sorry, ****. Thanks in
advance for answers and tips.

Lukasz Grabun

Hi Lukasz,

I am quite happy with the sigma, though it is slow and gives EOS a hard time
to focus. I think it is a fair outdoor and multipurpose/multiuse lens,
taking into account its price. You'll definately need the tripod. But I do
not think you'll stick with it for the rest of your life. If you shoot
atchitecture and landscape you could go for a fixed lens. Zooms are nice but
do you have a nice 50mm lens?

regards,

dimitris

Dnia Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:50:52 GMT, Tony napisa³(a):

Go with a Canon. The 75-300 is the best of those you mention or the 100-300
which is optically no better but has the convienience of full time manual
focus. At those prices for the best optically in that range you would be
wasting money on the others.

Thanks for all replies. An thanks for references from you signature (not
included in this post :-).

So Canon 75-300. However, I forgot to mention other Canon lenses which
also should be considered; models 90-300 were designed for 300V bodies.
I haven't heard anything good about them (but - also - anything good
about 75-300). Well. Also, there's 80-200 model which, though has a bit
shorter focal length, presents quite good quality (this I've heard,
someone straighten this out, please, if I am wrong). Needlessly to say,
it is hard to make up a mind. These models seem to be a bit "unpopular"
as I haven't found as many tests/resources on them as on previously
mentioned types. Advice anyone?

A bit about prices. I've checked B&H pages today. They do offer quite a
bargain and they prices are so *cool*. $250 dollars for 100-300 USM
whereas in Poland it costs 1500 PLN which is, approximately, $450. $200
of taxes and tolls, blast it. Even with adding shipping fares and the
toll it would something about $400. Option to consider :-)

--
Lukasz Grabun

For the print sizes that you mention, I don't think you have a lot
to worry about for picture quality, stopping down the aperture won't hurt
of course Build quality at this price range may vary more between
lenses than brands...

So, it is more like lucky pick of a lens from tens of boxes I will be
offered, yeah? I'e heard an opinnion that these third party products
tend to be diffetent even among one model i.e. two lenses of same model
can differ between each other. Is it true?

--
Lukasz Grabun

Dnia Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:58:04 +0300, Dps napisa³(a):

I am quite happy with the sigma, though it is slow and gives EOS a hard time
to focus. I think it is a fair outdoor and multipurpose/multiuse lens,
taking into account its price. You'll definately need the tripod. But I do
not think you'll stick with it for the rest of your life. If you shoot
atchitecture and landscape you could go for a fixed lens. Zooms are nice but
do you have a nice 50mm lens?

I have tripod and long focusing time does not bother me that much.
Landscaped and houses do not - hopefully - move. :-)

As far as 50 mm topic is covered he well, this focal length is within
range of my kit set; should I bother purchasing another one? I noticed
that much too often objects I take photos of are too small and too
distant. Sometimes I make photos from behing the fence and zoom is so
nice to have in such situations.

--
Lukasz Grabun

Dnia Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:58:04 +0300, Dps napisa³(a):

I am quite happy with the sigma, though it is slow and gives EOS a hard time
to focus. I think it is a fair outdoor and multipurpose/multiuse lens,
taking into account its price. You'll definately need the tripod. But I do
not think you'll stick with it for the rest of your life. If you shoot
atchitecture and landscape you could go for a fixed lens. Zooms are nice but
do you have a nice 50mm lens?

I have tripod and long focusing time does not bother me that much.
Landscaped and houses do not - hopefully - move. :-)

As far as 50 mm topic is covered he well, this focal length is within
range of my kit set; should I bother purchasing another one? I noticed
that much too often objects I take photos of are too small and too
distant. Sometimes I make photos from behing the fence and zoom is so
nice to have in such situations.

--
Lukasz Grabun

I have no knowledge of either lens - Sorry.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Lukasz Grabun" wrote in message
...
Dnia Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:50:52 GMT, Tony napisa³(a):

Go with a Canon. The 75-300 is the best of those you mention or the
100-300
which is optically no better but has the convienience of full time
manual
focus. At those prices for the best optically in that range you would be
wasting money on the others.

Thanks for all replies. An thanks for references from you signature (not
included in this post :-).

So Canon 75-300. However, I forgot to mention other Canon lenses which
also should be considered; models 90-300 were designed for 300V bodies.
I haven't heard anything good about them (but - also - anything good
about 75-300). Well. Also, there's 80-200 model which, though has a bit
shorter focal length, presents quite good quality (this I've heard,
someone straighten this out, please, if I am wrong). Needlessly to say,
it is hard to make up a mind. These models seem to be a bit "unpopular"
as I haven't found as many tests/resources on them as on previously
mentioned types. Advice anyone?

A bit about prices. I've checked B&H pages today. They do offer quite a
bargain and they prices are so *cool*. $250 dollars for 100-300 USM
whereas in Poland it costs 1500 PLN which is, approximately, $450. $200
of taxes and tolls, blast it. Even with adding shipping fares and the
toll it would something about $400. Option to consider :-)

--
Lukasz Grabun

Lukasz Grabun wrote:


I have tripod and long focusing time does not bother me that much.
Landscaped and houses do not - hopefully - move. :-)

You should be using manual focus.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Lukasz Grabun choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to
spell out:

For the print sizes that you mention, I don't think you have
a lot
to worry about for picture quality, stopping down the aperture won't
hurt of course Build quality at this price range may vary more
between lenses than brands...

So, it is more like lucky pick of a lens from tens of boxes I will be
offered, yeah? I'e heard an opinnion that these third party products
tend to be diffetent even among one model i.e. two lenses of same
model can differ between each other. Is it true?

The phenomenon has some anecdotal support, and extends to
manufacturer lenses also... trying everything out to the level of obsession
present on the Internet is probably not good for you though

--
______________A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E !_________________
| __ "The Internet is where lunatics are
| (__ * _ _ _ _ internetworked worldwide at the speed of light.
| __)|| | |(_)| \ *This* is progress?" --J. Shinal