I just recently bought a new camera. I got the Canon t2i. Replaced the AE1 I have had for years. As ya know I really moved up. It came with the 18-55 is lense and in the package was an 55-200 zoom with the image stabilizer as well. I want a more powerful like the 70-300. Question is do I get the Canon brand or go with sygma or something simular. Looked on e-bay and the sygma is cheaper, I'm afraid the pictures would be also. Bought the camera at best buy and their lense lke I want is 649.00
Any advice??
Okie

quote:

Looked on e-bay and the sygma is cheaper, I'm afraid the pictures would be also.

Kind of summed that up yourself.
Make sure it's not counterfeit goods from EBAY if you order anything form there.

I have a similar camera (the model that became yours) and the 70-300 f4.5 IS you are looking at.

Good lense but if I had to do it all over I would have bought a 70-200 L series glass and a 1.4x extender for it.A one time purchase for good glass that holds its value.

The 70-200 comes in 4 versions an f4 is the least expensive then a f2.8 for better low light and both with IS.The f4 is damn sweet even at the lesser cost.

These are from either end of that 70-300 to give you an idea;

I have been given a Canon 7D. So I bought a 17-55mm IS and a 28-300 IS from canon to go with it.

Both lenses are excellent.

My own thoughts are to use a lense from the same manufacturer as the camera.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I have been given a Canon 7D. So I bought a 17-55mm IS and a 28-300 IS from canon to go with it.

Both lenses are excellent.

My own thoughts are to use a lense from the same manufacturer as the camera.

That sure is good glass....but at $2400 street for the 28-300L maybe a bit high for the level the OP is asking at.

The 70-200 f4 L is about $600 and a converter(which will cost an f stop in performance) about $200

quote:

Originally posted by dinsdale:

Good lense but if I had to do it all over I would have bought a 70-200 L series glass and a 1.4x extender for it.A one time purchase for good glass that holds its value.

The 70-200 comes in 4 versions an f4 is the least expensive then a f2.8 for better low light and both with IS.The f4 is damn sweet even at the lesser cost.

That's the setup I have for my Canon 20D. (70-200L2.8 w/ 1.4x extender). I got the 1.4x as it only reduces the settings one f-stop rather than 2 stops with the 2x. Also, one gets a "built in" magnification of 1.6x with the APS-C sized sensors that are in the Canon prosumer cameras. So with my lens and camera I get 1.6x1.4x200mm or 448mm equivalent.

quote:

Originally posted by Ske1eter:

quote:

Originally posted by dinsdale:

Good lense but if I had to do it all over I would have bought a 70-200 L series glass and a 1.4x extender for it.A one time purchase for good glass that holds its value.

The 70-200 comes in 4 versions an f4 is the least expensive then a f2.8 for better low light and both with IS.The f4 is damn sweet even at the lesser cost.

That's the setup I have for my Canon 20D. (70-200L2.8 w/ 1.4x extender). I got the 1.4x as it only reduces the settings one f-stop rather than 2 stops with the 2x. Also, one gets a "built in" magnification of 1.6x with the APS-C sized sensors that are in the Canon prosumer cameras. So with my lens and camera I get 1.6x1.4x200mm or 448mm equivalent.

And there ya go....

Do you have the IS or the standard 2.8?How do you like it?

I just bought a 10-22 for landscapes and I'm going for the 70-200 next.

But how often do you use anything over 300mm.
For a decent image at 400mm you'll need a bloody big heavy tripod, serious light and a stationary subject.
I always avoid multipliers they are never as good as you hope and brand name ones aren't cheap.
If budget was a consideration and I had a 200 zoom, I'd think of a fixed 300mm. A good fixed lens will always be sharper than a zoom and way cheaper.

quote:

Originally posted by dinsdale:

quote:

Originally posted by Ske1eter:

quote:

Originally posted by dinsdale:

Good lense but if I had to do it all over I would have bought a 70-200 L series glass and a 1.4x extender for it.A one time purchase for good glass that holds its value.

The 70-200 comes in 4 versions an f4 is the least expensive then a f2.8 for better low light and both with IS.The f4 is damn sweet even at the lesser cost.

That's the setup I have for my Canon 20D. (70-200L2.8 w/ 1.4x extender). I got the 1.4x as it only reduces the settings one f-stop rather than 2 stops with the 2x. Also, one gets a "built in" magnification of 1.6x with the APS-C sized sensors that are in the Canon prosumer cameras. So with my lens and camera I get 1.6x1.4x200mm or 448mm equivalent.

And there ya go....

Do you have the IS or the standard 2.8?How do you like it?

I just bought a 10-22 for landscapes and I'm going for the 70-200 next.

Yes, I have the IS version. If I do my part the pictures turn out pretty well. It is a heavy son-of-a-gun though.

Here's a cropped image taken freehand (no tripod) of some cedar waxwings that shot in my backyard.

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:
But how often do you use anything over 300mm.
For a decent image at 400mm you'll need a bloody big heavy tripod, serious light and a stationary subject.
I always avoid multipliers they are never as good as you hope and brand name ones aren't cheap.
If budget was a consideration and I had a 200 zoom, I'd think of a fixed 300mm. A good fixed lens will always be sharper than a zoom and way cheaper.

I use my setup in the configuration I mentioned all of the time without a tripod during the daytime. Naturally, things start to change when the light drops. Going fixed is cheaper but when you add up all of the ones you'll need to buy to cover the 70mm-200mm range, you'll pay plenty plus lug around a lot of extra weight, IMO.

You can get one lab's indication of what lenses work well on which camera bodies. You select the camera body, and if they've tested it with any lenses, you can see their results. DxO makes some of the best photo-imaging software, software which can correct certain lens aberrations.

Some might be surprised that in certain cases, lenses from Sigma outperform the camera body manufacturers lenses. The link:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php

I got my Tamron 2.8 28-75mm because it was as sharp as the big dollar Canon and saved some serious cash. No, the barrel isn't metal like the Canon L but I'm not going to beat it up anyway. Besides, Glock, M&P's, XD's, etc. are plastic, right?

Another site with some info:

SLR Gear

If it is worth the price to you, go with the Canon 70-200 F2.8 and add Canon's 1.4 and 2x converters. That will handle 95% of your shooting needs and you will never out grow it nor sell it.

The photo of the Lab was taken with the Canon D30 and the EF 70-300 IS f4 lens. The original RAW image was even sharper than this compressed JPG.

I have probably taken a couple thousand pix with that lens, both with 35mm film and digital, since I owned it with very good results. Several have been printed in 16x20 or used as two-page spreads in magazines.

The ones below the Lab were taken with the 70-300 as 35mm slides, scanned as TIF, then saved under SAVE FOR WEB, i.e. very compressed small JPG files.

I shoot my 100-400L far more than my 70-200 2.8L or 400 5.6L. I hate TC's.

The aforementioned Tammie 28-75 2.8 is an absolute STEAL.

Given the bodies thus far mentioned and their higher ISO abilities,the 24-105L and 100-400L would be my twin lens battery. IS in conjunction with Today's less noisy ISO's,allow wonders.

100-400 musings,if only for conversation and that upon a "lowly" 8MP body.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I have been given a Canon 7D. So I bought a 17-55mm IS and a 28-300 IS from canon to go with it.

Both lenses are excellent.

My own thoughts are to use a lense from the same manufacturer as the camera.

The Canon 7Dn is a real nice camera for action shots, sports, wildlife and such.

In relation to Canon lenses, my preference is to take my time to save enough cash to buy the best L glass I can afford. For example, if I can't afford the 70-200 f/4L IS USM, then I skip the same lens but without IS for around $600.00.

A very nice and not very expensive L prime is the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II (black color with a red ring near the front). This lens costs just a little over $700.00. This little lens is fast, and sharp:

100% crop:

Another great prime is the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM:

For those of you who are interested in seeing how other lenses might perform on you canon camera, this is a good site to check out.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/