Buying a lens and losing my mind....

[1smoothroller]

I am new to photography and I have been reading and researching and taking photos..... Now, I am in the market for a telephoto zoom and I am so confused.

I am trying to decide between the sigma and the canon. Then there is DG, USM, IS USM...

I called adorama to order a lens, I had narrowed it down to the Canon EF 75 - 300 mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus telephoto zoom lens... $200.00 or the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Tele Zoom Lens .. The person who answered confused me more. He suggested the cheaper canon (Canon 75-300 mm without USM ) ..he said I would not need a tripod, the lens is lightweight.

Please help me.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by 1smoothroller

I am new to photography and I have been reading and researching and taking photos..... Now, I am in the market for a telephoto zoom and I am so confused.

Ask and we will answer

I am trying to decide between the sigma and the canon. Then there is DG, USM, IS USM...

...and for Canon, there is the lens-glossary

I called adorama to order a lens, I had narrowed it down to the Canon EF 75 - 300 mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus telephoto zoom lens... $200.00 or the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Tele Zoom Lens .. The person who answered confused me more. He suggested the cheaper canon (Canon 75-300 mm without USM ) ..he said I would not need a tripod, the lens is lightweight.

...so much for salespersons, they try, but most don't have a clue...

You would not need a tripod for the 75-300, USM or not, because of the weight, but because you need a shutterspeed of 1/125sec at the wide end and 1/500sec at the tele end to shoot that lens without motion blurr, handheld. And since it is a 'dark' lens to start with (F4.0 - F5.6, meaning not much light is getting in anyway...) and you need to stop that lens down at least one stop, more = better, so you shoot it at F5.6-F8.0 minimum, to get sharp, contrasty, colourfull images in the first place, so you need a lot of light or a higher ISO to be able to handhold...

...or use a tripod

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[primarycolorman]

Just curious... but.

300mm is pretty long. How are you intending to use this lens? If you aren't trying for birds we might be able to suggest some thing that'll have better image quality but not be quite as long.

[Austen]

Apart from the obvious (f 0.6 and ~$1,700) what is the difference between the 85mm 1.2 and 1.8 lens ?

Is the 1.2 THAT much better ?

Is the 1.8 a dog of a lens that it's $350 price would suggest ?

Thanks,

Austen.

[expensive_hobby]

I have the 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM. Do you have any specific questions about it? Or do you want to see some samples of something specific with it?

I like it. Use it alot. Most of the time I handhold. And it's perfect for a variety of things.

[primarycolorman]

Austen: its just hard to get that extra stop down to 1.2. Unless you expect to be very light-limited or want to play with extremely short DOF, go for the 1.8. Image quality is still very good.

[Quad]

Originally Posted by Austen

Apart from the obvious (f 0.6 and ~$1,700) what is the difference between the 85mm 1.2 and 1.8 lens ?

Is the 1.2 THAT much better ?

Is the 1.8 a dog of a lens that it's $350 price would suggest ?

Thanks,

Austen.

The 85 1.8 is an excellent lens, and not just good for the price but good.


The 1.2 is a stop faster and once you go faster than 1.4 it just costs a lot more to make a lens that is useable wide open and as you deviate from a normal focal length these issue are even more costly and since these lenses cover 35mm frame 50 is normal for them. Just look at how much larger the lens is for a stop. That is not pop bottle bottoms they are using for glass and then there is the economies of scale.


That much better is very subjective. 1.2 is very hard to control since you have such shallow DOF even 1.8 needs to be used precisely.


I just checked this site has 6 review of the 1.8 take a look there.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Austen

Apart from the obvious (f 0.6 and ~$1,700) what is the difference between the 85mm 1.2 and 1.8 lens ?

Is the 1.2 THAT much better ?

IMO: Yes.

Is the 1.8 a dog of a lens that it's $350 price would suggest ?

Nope, the EF85F1.8USM is a very good piece of glass, especially stopped down to F2.5 and higher, it's ideal for studio's, where you shoot more at F5.6 - F8.0 - F11.0.

But if you want ultimate DoF control and ultimate IQ, and the ability to shoot handheld at almost every occasion, the F1.2L is your ticket.

...*my* €0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[1smoothroller]

Originally Posted by expensive_hobby

I have the 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM. Do you have any specific questions about it? Or do you want to see some samples of something specific with it?

I like it. Use it alot. Most of the time I handhold. And it's perfect for a variety of things.

Both. One question I have is does it REQUIRE a tripod? Do the photos require much editing for quality?

[expensive_hobby]

Give me a few minutes and I'll get you some pics.

For me it does not require a tripod. Sometimes I do and have had to make adjustments to ensure that- changing ISO is my first choice.

[00silvergt]

Wow, your lens choices are all over the map, you ARE new...wow, I sort of miss that when you can't decide on which to get first. The first lesson to learn: "You do get what you paid for!" Only exception to this would be the nifty-fifty (EF 50mm f/1., yes the build sucks, cheapy lens, but the IQ is great, not something you expect from a $50 lens.

[expensive_hobby]

Alright this is a pain. I was going to pull up the pics from the last days of school activities, but there are so many faces with blatant names from a spelling bee and stuff it's taking forever to edit out those things.

Let me dig and see whatelse I have showing the various captures from 75-300.

[dougsmit]

It is always interesting to see the differing opinions when someone asks, "Is it worth it?" My Toyota can drive half as fast as a Lamborghini but still can go fast enough to attract the Police. Is it worth half a million dollars to buy a car I can't drive to 25% of its capability? For some it is. The 85mm f/1.8 has a great reputation and can be joined in the bag by several other very nice lenses before the total outlay equals the f/1.2 alone. If I had the free cash to buy an f/1.2 I'd have enough to buy a 5D body which I want more. If I had enough money to buy a Lamborghini, I'd buy a Toyota and a 5D with f/1.2 and take a long vacation to take pictures. "Is it worth it?" Perhaps it is to you but only you can tell.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by dougsmit

It is always interesting to see the differing opinions when someone asks, "Is it worth it?"

the question was not 'is it worth it', the question was 'is it that much better'

For the rest I totally agree with your conclusion.

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[expensive_hobby]

Okay, all images are straight out of the camera from just a bit ago. For this set I really did have a rhyme and reason in mind, but the girls kept messing me up arguing, bickering, etc. lol I hope it makes sense to you.


M; 4.0; 1/40; 100 ISO; 75mm; Auto


4.5; 100mm (everything is the same unless noted otherwise)


5.0; 140mm


5.0; 205mm
*I knew I shook when I hit the shutter


5.6; 300mm


5.6; 300mm; 1/4- just for show

Again just for showing purposes

1/10; again for show

1/15; again for show

1/15; again for show



M; 4.6; 1/50; 100ISO; 75mm; Auto


Just for fun: Program; 4.5; 1/100; 100; Auto


4.0; 1/125


4.0; 1/250


400ISO; 1/250


105mm; 1/40


5.0; 140mm


210mm


5.6; 300mm


400ISO; 1/200; 300mm


Same as above, just with the wall showing


Same as above two except 100 ISO


I still will see what I can pull up showing other scenes. It's just time consuming sitting here reading what was shot with and without that lens.