Topic: Lens advice

[BJ]

ok...so i sold 1/2 of my 4track equip.  and now im picking up another lens

I have two possiblities for around $750 ea.  which would you go with?

1) Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM
   a) is < 1 month old and still minty
   b) has macro functionality

2) Canon 80-200 f/2.8L
   a) from the reviews, one of the sharpest lenses available
   b) however, its a few years old, and this would be the 3rd owner (2nd was only for 2 months) (black lens, not the white ones)

they both have the speed and range i am looking for right now.  Same price, but the sigma is newer and has macro, plus it was made for digital cameras.

thoughts?

bj

[stirinthesauce]

either is a nice lens.  For 750, splurge another 4 bills and get a new L 2.8 

why did the 2nd owner of the canon lens keep for such a short time?  Something to consider.

[BJ]

either is a nice lens.  For 750, splurge another 4 bills and get a new L 2.8 

why did the 2nd owner of the canon lens keep for such a short time?  Something to consider.

his list is ALL primes, he bought this used to try a zoom, doesnt like it at all, his original thread was WTT:  80-200L for 135L  he just wanted another prime instead.  The original seller has a ton of posts, and so does this guy...i think the lens is good, the pics look amazing.

as for antoher 4 bills..can't do...I am alloted ONLY the money i have from selling gear (my wife quit working when we had our kid...d'OH)

im on a limited budget...so these are the two i have found (after a couple of weeks looking) that fit.


IF i could have found a sax for 6, instead of hte brick at 1100...then i could have splurged on the lens.  oh well.

[dgodwin]

normally I'd fluff the sigma, but in this case a I'd probably go with the canon, unless the HSM really appeals to you.  Not sure how useful the macro function will be.  It's 1:3.5 at 200mm

[phanophish]

I'm a Nikon shooter, but I'd probably say go for the L glass.  $750 for the Sigma is only about $150 off what you can find it new.  The Canon lens is a solid buy if it is in good condition.  From a resale value standpoint I would think the Canon lens has less of a downside.  Both will yield great images so think more about the long term.  You may find your self wanting to go to a IS version of the Canon glass and I would think if you take care of it should sell for about what you pay for it when you are ready to upgrade.  I sold a Sigma just like the one you are looking at (not the new version with "digital" coatings) in a Nikon mount for about $650.  It was a nice lens, but not a Nikon or Canon lens.

[BJ]

I'm a Nikon shooter, but I'd probably say go for the L glass.  $750 for the Sigma is only about $150 off what you can find it new.  The Canon lens is a solid buy if it is in good condition.  From a resale value standpoint I would think the Canon lens has less of a downside.  Both will yield great images so think more about the long term.  You may find your self wanting to go to a IS version of the Canon glass and I would think if you take care of it should sell for about what you pay for it when you are ready to upgrade.  I sold a Sigma just like the one you are looking at (not the new version with "digital" coatings) in a Nikon mount for about $650.  It was a nice lens, but not a Nikon or Canon lens.

thanx!
those are along the same lines as my thoughts...  but that macro feature just keeps leaping at me!  my lens now doesnt have it either...
from what i have read..that 80-200 is as about as sharp of a lens as you can find.  I wish i could afford the IS version..but for another 900, i would have to stop taping....i just can't do that yet 

[BJ]

normally I'd fluff the sigma, but in this case a I'd probably go with the canon, unless the HSM really appeals to you.  Not sure how useful the macro function will be.  It's 1:3.5 at 200mm

you don't think that macro is good?  granted i haven't researched it well..but i just assumed it was (but even if not, i at least would have SOME macro)...i dont know..ugg...

im really leaning towards the canon anyway.

[phanophish]

thanx!
those are along the same lines as my thoughts...  but that macro feature just keeps leaping at me!  my lens now doesnt have it either...
from what i have read..that 80-200 is as about as sharp of a lens as you can find.  I wish i could afford the IS version..but for another 900, i would have to stop taping....i just can't do that yet 

FWIW I don't do much Macro, but typically you are shooting at smaller apertures to get a bit more DOF so a lens that is really sharp wide open is not that important.  You can pick up a less expensive lens that will do a pretty good job in the macro range and yield pretty solid images. Longer focal lengths lenses make the available depth of field even more shallow, but obviously give you some stand off for shooting mean critters or to find room for lighting.

I don't know about Canon but lots of the Nikon macro guys pick up old 100mm D manual focus glass for macro work.  The lenses are dirt cheap since they won't auto focus, but you rarely AF with Macro shots anyway.  Depending on the body you also have to manually meter, but also not usually a big deal for macro.

[dgodwin]

I've got a sigma 105mm macro.  it's 1:1   That means that if you took a picture of a nickel at the closest focusing distance, you could then take it, and lay it against a negative and they would be the same size.  Now blow that up to a photograph, and you've got an oustanding, detailed photograph of the nickel.  With the 70-200 the macro is 1:3.5  The size would be approximately 1/4 the size that it would be with a 1:1 lens.  Other concerns would be could you hold the 200mm lens steady enough to get a sharp image?   Remember, that in order to get a decent amount of depth of field, you'll want to stop down the aperature.  Also, the depth of field decreases with an increase in focal length.  Anyways. we went to a butterfly conservatory.  Here's an image I took with the sigma 105mm  The aperature was F.11 (didn't record the shutter speed  maybe 1/160)   I was not at the minimum focusing distance

[BJ]

great information...thanx to both of you!!!  +t's and again in 12

macro is something i would really like to start doing...maybe i'll get a macro lens for christmas...who knows!

bj

[dgodwin]

the advice of getting an older lens is spot on for nikon.  I focused most of the photos manually.  Unfortunately Canon changed camera mounts, so their older manual focus lenses won't work with any auto-focus cameras.  I bet you could get a 50mm sigma or canon for a couple of bills.  +t

[Frank in JC]

After personally experiencing what vibration reduction technology is capable of, I'm not really interested in spending good money on a tele without it, unless of course I can get it for a song.  Class-D is to amplifiers what IS/VR is to lenses--it's the future.

Until you can afford the big mutha, your photography in general might be better served by Canon's consumer-grade (i.e. made of plastic) telephoto zoom lens, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS.  I don't know your shooting habits, but when I go out it's usually for hours.  After a few miles of walking, my father's 80-200mm f/2.8 starts wearing on me.

Also... it's more of a thought experiment since I haven't actually made the comparison in reality, but when shooting handheld, a 200mm lens at f/5.6 w/IS has the potential to produce sharper images than at f/2.8 w/o IS.  Camera shake ruins a picture completely, but a slightly motion-blurred subject can often be desirable. 

Then again, if you're only interested in low-light shooting or always shoot from a tripod, forget everything I wrote   

-Frank