Possible new lens purchase

My old 75-300 mm is getting close to the end of it's life. It's having real trouble focusing, AF isn't what it once was. It sticks when zooming slowly. It basically needs a thorough cleaning. Plus, it's simply a slow lens at F 5.6 @ 300mm.

I'm thinking about getting a new one - or, rather, the s/o is saying she wants me to have a new one as a birthday present.

Any thoughts? I want similar range, but a faster lens. Right now I'm batting around the idea of the 70-200 F 4 IS or the 70-200 F 2.8 (non-IS).

Anything else you can think of? I might be persuaded to go with a fixed 300 F4 IS. I've wanted that lens for a long time, and, with the 1.4 X teleconverter it would be a seriously good lens for wildlife photography.

I would opt for the 70-200 F2.8, just because it's a faster lens. IS isn't really important enough to me, but then again, I've never played with one so who knows? Maybe it's some life-altering element that I've been missing out on.

xtine wrote:I would opt for the 70-200 F2.8, just because it's a faster lens. IS isn't really important enough to me, but then again, I've never played with one so who knows? Maybe it's some life-altering element that I've been missing out on.

That's the way I'm leaning too. I guess we'll see what happens. The internets have nothing but good things to say about that lens.

Found this:

If you're going backpacking with a tripod, save your back and get the 70-200/4L. For studio portraits that will be lit by electronic flash, get the 70-200/2.8L (non-stabilized). For all-around high-performance, you definitely want the IS version of the 70-200/2.8L.

xtine wrote:Found this:

If you're going backpacking with a tripod, save your back and get the 70-200/4L. For studio portraits that will be lit by electronic flash, get the 70-200/2.8L (non-stabilized). For all-around high-performance, you definitely want the IS version of the 70-200/2.8L.

Yeah, ideally the 2.8 IS would be the best bet. But that thing retails for over $2000 up here. Not sure the IS is worth that.

That said, I'm not convinced that the 2.8 wouldn't be better for nature photography / hiking - especially since it'd be more receptive to a 1.4X or 2 X extender than the 4.0 since for wildlife shooting you definitely need some reach.

One thing to note, the 1.4x teleconverter will force you to add 1 stop in exposure to the 300mm F4.0 lens, meaning it will wind up being an f5.6 lens with the teleconverter attached.

The 70-200 range lenses are both nice but you lose 100mm on the long end.

In the same sort of price class of the 70-200F.2.8 non IS you can also look into the Sigma 100-300F4.0 EX/HSM lens. You go back to F4.0 as max aperture (not too bad IMO, even F5.6 isn't that bad for 98-99% of shooting situations) but get the 300mm max zoom range.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:One thing to note, the 1.4x teleconverter will force you to add 1 stop in exposure to the 300mm F4.0 lens, meaning it will wind up being an f5.6 lens with the teleconverter attached.

The 70-200 range lenses are both nice but you lose 100mm on the long end.

In the same sort of price class of the 70-200F.2.8 non IS you can also look into the Sigma 100-300F4.0 EX/HSM lens. You go back to F4.0 as max aperture (not too bad IMO, even F5.6 isn't that bad for 98-99% of shooting situations) but get the 300mm max zoom range.

Yeah, that's why I probably wouldn't go for the 2X extender, even with the 70-200. Though, I suppose 400 mm at 5.6 really isn't that bad either.

Not sure if I could make myself by a Sigma lens - I know they're good, but I've always been devoted to Canon's lenses.

Nothing wrong with being devoted to a brand (Canon in this case ) I have used Canon products in my shooting (personally and professionally) for most of my adult life. Of course I used professionally in studio, Bronica medium format film cameras for years before I migrated to all digital. But one thing to consider as you make a choice having competitive alternatives to Canon branded lenses for your camera is a good thing, so by at least thinking about the Sigma you can accept that if you buy the Sigma you are not hurting Canon per se but are bettering competition. I'm not saying to buy the Sigma but do not be afraid too or feel like you may be cheating Canon if you do.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:Nothing wrong with being devoted to a brand (Canon in this case ) I have used Canon products in my shooting (personally and professionally) for most of my adult life. Of course I used professionally in studio, Bronica medium format film cameras for years before I migrated to all digital. But one thing to consider as you make a choice having competitive alternatives to Canon branded lenses for your camera is a good thing, so by at least thinking about the Sigma you can accept that if you buy the Sigma you are not hurting Canon per se but are bettering competition. I'm not saying to buy the Sigma but do not be afraid too or feel like you may be cheating Canon if you do.

Well I'm not worried about cheating Canon, I'm just used to their lenses so frequently that it's second nature for me now. Switching between auto and manual focus, zooming, holding them, etc. It might not seem like much, but after 15 years of just canon lenses I've become very accustomed to them.

I've also heard some issues with compatibility between Tamron, I think, lenses and Canon bodies. Not sure if Sigma would suffer the same fate.

I've heard Sigmas are hit or miss but that their higher end lenses are better, for whatever that's worth. I have some photography friends who love Sigmas and some who hate them, so make sure you read up if you go that route. (As with any lens, but still.)

thewalrus wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:Nothing wrong with being devoted to a brand (Canon in this case ) I have used Canon products in my shooting (personally and professionally) for most of my adult life. Of course I used professionally in studio, Bronica medium format film cameras for years before I migrated to all digital. But one thing to consider as you make a choice having competitive alternatives to Canon branded lenses for your camera is a good thing, so by at least thinking about the Sigma you can accept that if you buy the Sigma you are not hurting Canon per se but are bettering competition. I'm not saying to buy the Sigma but do not be afraid too or feel like you may be cheating Canon if you do.

Well I'm not worried about cheating Canon, I'm just used to their lenses so frequently that it's second nature for me now. Switching between auto and manual focus, zooming, holding them, etc. It might not seem like much, but after 15 years of just canon lenses I've become very accustomed to them.

I've also heard some issues with compatibility between Tamron, I think, lenses and Canon bodies. Not sure if Sigma would suffer the same fate.

Only some older lenses may have compatibility issues with digital bodies.

fffuck I forgot about the 100-400 mm too. That should probably be in the running as well.

Dude. She's a doctor. Get them all.

(Reminder: these can't be considered marital assets!!!)