[Proxima]

They do have a 70-300 I think but its much more expensive.

Which is a better telephoto - the Canon 55-250 or the Sigma 70-300?

I need to buy one of them soon.

[Jaggu]

They use OS for Optical Stabilizer.

Sigma - Lenses

Sigma in comparison is slightly slow, heavier and noisy compared to Canon, thats what i have understood. But this wont matter for amateur use, so i would say go for it.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by Proxima

They do have a 70-300 I think but its much more expensive.

Which is a better telephoto - the Canon 55-250 or the Sigma 70-300?

I need to buy one of them soon.

I just checked on B&H and the OS sigma is only about USD120 cheaper than the Canon IS USM lens. So if going for stabilization, Canon should be better. Non OS sigma is way cheaper though. Even Tamron has a 70-300 which is decent for its price. I would suggest that you go for a IS/OS lens for sure as the 70-300s tend to be slow at the long end.

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

@IT inspector
Haha, I think I know to google . Well I was asking about a comparison between Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and the canon 70-200 f4, which I still cannot find online.
Regards,
TG.

I believe there was a direct comparison done on Australian Overclockers or OCAU few months back. Maybe try finding that. I think the guys username was "tiggerpeg" or something similar. Biggest Canon fanboi he is. I do frequently visit the photography section there.

Originally Posted by navin

[i]Whereas the HF10 has a maximum bitrate...snip...

Sorry, i should have been clearer. When we talk 24p,30i,50i,60i. We are talking about frame rates. I think HF10 can do 24p or 25p, even if it can`t, its easy enough in post processing.

I got an old Nikon beer can, oops, Nikon 70-300mm G. Got it second hand for $90 including shipping 2yrs back. So well worth the money.

I don`t know which 55-250mm is called bokeh machine here but in my experience, Canon 55-250 was a crap lens, altough 70-300mm was a completely different machine.

[Proxima]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

They use OS for Optical Stabilizer.

Sigma - Lenses

Sigma in comparison is slightly slow, heavier and noisy compared to Canon, thats what i have understood. But this wont matter for amateur use, so i would say go for it.

Does the IS work better in the Canon as well?

Originally Posted by it_inspector

I don`t know which 55-250mm is called bokeh machine here but in my experience, Canon 55-250 was a crap lens, altough 70-300mm was a completely different machine.

What would you recommend for an amateur, it_inspector? Canon 55-250 or sigma 70-300? Or something else?

As long as it is less than 250USD.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

The reason I say they F4 lenses especially the 70-200 F4 is over rated are
1) Its not half of what the 2.8 goes for. its 1250 vs 1800 USDs and the non IS 2.8 goes for even lesser.

When I got my 70-200 f4 IS (sold this lens to get the 2.8 IS) it was 48k and f2.8 was 86k and it was almost double. And don;t forget that there is a non IS version of f4 too and that's quite affordable.

Originally Posted by SPARKled

2) If you are really stopping down your lens the even the 55-250 is pretty good.

I really won't compare the 55-250mm (yes, I did have seen the pics) with 70-200mm f4. One is VFM lens and the other is true pro lens if I might say so.

Originally Posted by SPARKled

3) There are better ways to cover this focal length, my choice would be 200 2.8 and the 85 1.8. Infact thats the path I took with my Nikon 180 2.8 and the 85 1.8. At 2.8 both of them are sharper than the 70-200 Vr lens and by F4 they are their very best.

Well, primes are different story altogether but I like the versatility of the Zooms. And it's again personal preference.

Originally Posted by SPARKled

4) For wide angle, F4 seems ok but then why not the Tokina 12-24 and if you are shooting Canon, the wide angle USM primes. The 24-105 is almost 1150 USDs. Surely there are better ways to cover this focal length.

Can tokina 12-24 be used for full frame? And in that range canon have 10-22mm and I would prefer that over the tokina (no doubt that tokina is an amazing lens). So for 17-40mm lens I doubt there is a proper equivalent lens with a much lesser price point.
As for 24-105mm it's costly, yeah. There are Sigma/Tamron lenses (24-70mm) in the similar range available. But IQ wise I doubt that any of them will hold any water in front of 24-105mm although I'm looking to buy one such cheaper alternative. I'm not exactly a prime lens guy as I prefer Zooms as of now.
BTW, we are digressing, the initial point of discussion was whether it's F2.8 or F4 and for f4 all I can say that many people who are on the verge of shifting to pro quality lenses can use the price of F4's to their benefit. Say a 70-200mm f4 over 2.8 or 17-40 f4 over a 16-35 f2.8. And that savings will still leave you some more money to spend on that costly 24-105mm f4 ;-)
Regards,

[Torqueguru]

@ITinspector
Hmm, Ok. Anyways, I haven't had any sharpness issues with mine, even when used with a 2x tele convertor. I have got some very sharp stuff from the 70-200 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 with the 2x tele converter. I guess, these are very minor differences if there is any such difference in existence. No fan boyism here, just an observation I would like to share
From the 70-200 f2.8

Original size - http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/...266c067d_o.jpg

From the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x tele-converter

Original Size - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2804/...1b12b830_o.jpg

Regards,
TG.

[livyodream]

[quote=Torqueguru;1575608

From the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x tele-converter


TG.[/quote]


What is tele converter? A detailed explanation would be very much appreciated by a newbie

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

When I got my 70-200 f4 IS (sold this lens to get the 2.8 IS) it was 48k and f2.8 was 86k and it was almost double. And don;t forget that there is a non IS version of f4 too and that's quite affordable.


I really won't compare the 55-250mm (yes, I did have seen the pics) with 70-200mm f4. One is VFM lens and the other is true pro lens if I might say so.


Well, primes are different story altogether but I like the versatility of the Zooms. And it's again personal preference.


Can tokina 12-24 be used for full frame? And in that range canon have 10-22mm and I would prefer that over the tokina (no doubt that tokina is an amazing lens). So for 17-40mm lens I doubt there is a proper equivalent lens with a much lesser price point.
As for 24-105mm it's costly, yeah. There are Sigma/Tamron lenses (24-70mm) in the similar range available. But IQ wise I doubt that any of them will hold any water in front of 24-105mm although I'm looking to buy one such cheaper alternative. I'm not exactly a prime lens guy as I prefer Zooms as of now.
BTW, we are digressing, the initial point of discussion was whether it's F2.8 or F4 and for f4 all I can say that many people who are on the verge of shifting to pro quality lenses can use the price of F4's to their benefit. Say a 70-200mm f4 over 2.8 or 17-40 f4 over a 16-35 f2.8. And that savings will still leave you some more money to spend on that costly 24-105mm f4 ;-)
Regards,

I guess I am prime guy so cant see myself spending so much on such slow zooms. The primes even the basic ones should be better than the zooms without a doubt so I cant see why anyone would spend so much money to get a good performance at apertures smaller than F4. The Nikon 70-300 VR as well as the el cheapo 55-200 VR are good wide open and brilliant stopped down so dont see the need to invest in an expensive 70-200 F4. Well I had the crop camera in mind when I said that the Tokina 12-24 is an option and was not thinking of full frame. Full frame entry is expensive and a pro opting for full frame cameras will surely have a 2.8 wide angle in his kit so was not thinking of the 2.8 exotic wide angles. A 24-105 F4 will be a pretty awkward focal length on a crop camera and so IMHO for full time pro having a full frame camera, a wiser choice will be the 24-70 2.8 with primes at 24, 50, 85 and a 105 mm. He will never need a 24-105 F4.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by livyodream

What is tele converter? A detailed explanation would be very much appreciated by a newbie

Tele converter is a tube like adopter which sits between the camera body and the lense and it increases the zoom power of the lense by certain factor, like 1.4 times or 2 times.

[livyodream]

ok, Googled about tele-converter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleconverter, got to know that its also called as doubler.

I have a doubt in this, hope to get an answer.
I have a SIGMA 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO LENS used in 1000D. So if i use a 2X tele-converter (adapter) will it become 140-600 ??? Is it what it means to say? does it actually work? I mean 600 is like extreme for what we are paying for.
correct me if im wrong.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by livyodream

ok, Googled about tele-converter Teleconverter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, got to know that its also called as doubler.

I have a doubt in this, hope to get an answer.
I have a SIGMA 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO LENS used in 1000D. So if i use a 2X tele-converter (adapter) will it become 140-600 ??? Is it what it means to say? does it actually work? I mean 600 is like extreme for what we are paying for.
correct me if im wrong.

You are absolutely correct. you will get 140-600, but the quality will not be too great. You may even lose AF and a very small aperture to work with. Only the fast and expensive primes or some exotic zooms take TCs well and give acceptable results. However 2X is a lottery even with these top lenses.

[livyodream]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

You are absolutely correct. you will get 140-600, but the quality will not be too great. You may even lose AF and a very small aperture to work with. Only the fast and expensive primes or some exotic zooms take TCs well and give acceptable results. However 2X is a lottery even with these top lenses.

Checked on ebay, Approx price in BLR would be around 14K. Is it recommended by you or anyone? Im really interested as 140-600 would be awesome for astro.

Will the above highlighted line holds good even on tripod with remote shutter release ?

Does anyone have any picture(s) as an example?

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

I guess I am prime guy so cant see myself spending so much on such slow zooms. The primes even the basic ones should be better than the zooms without a doubt so I cant see why anyone would spend so much money to get a good performance at apertures smaller than F4. The Nikon 70-300 VR as well as the el cheapo 55-200 VR are good wide open and brilliant stopped down so dont see the need to invest in an expensive 70-200 F4. Well I had the crop camera in mind when I said that the Tokina 12-24 is an option and was not thinking of full frame. Full frame entry is expensive and a pro opting for full frame cameras will surely have a 2.8 wide angle in his kit so was not thinking of the 2.8 exotic wide angles. A 24-105 F4 will be a pretty awkward focal length on a crop camera and so IMHO for full time pro having a full frame camera, a wiser choice will be the 24-70 2.8 with primes at 24, 50, 85 and a 105 mm. He will never need a 24-105 F4.

Sorry i was talking from Canon user's perspective, not Nikon's. I don;t have much idea about Nikorr glasses and their behaviour. By the way, when you are talking about stopping down that'll be almost unusable (say incase of bird/animal) if you've to stop down the lens to f11 or so to get that sharpness, as you'll be loosing the shutter speed. And that's where the beauty of the so called overrated lenses come into picture. I really how many here will shoot stop down while shooting action shots. I've seen the canon 55-250 and it's nowhere good when wide open. 70-300 IS is much better though but not cheap as you've mentioned(36k is not cheap).
Actually 24-105 f4 works an excellent walk-around lens and complements the 10-22 and 70-200mm pretty well. I really miss that range in my camera and that 50mm is not enough to bridge the gap of 22mm to 70mm. But that damn thing is costlier.
As I told you why anyone would spend on the zoom is because of the versatility and the 70-200mm is almost as good as a prime in that range. Well you may need a magnifying glass to see the quality differences. And I hate to keep on changing my lenses. Call me lazy
But again, barring the 24-105mm all other f4 variations are cost effective compared to their big brothers and that's the only point I wanted to make and surely they are not waste of money. At least for people like me who are not so well endowed to get the big brothers all the time. I would anyday buy a 17-40mm over a 16-35mm unless I find King Solomon's treasure.
Ciao.

@livyodream I doubt that you won't even be able to mount that 70-300mm on that 2x TC. The TC's are made with a protruding element most of the time and not compatible to all lenses. May be you can use a extension tube but i think then you won't be able to focus at infinity(correct me if I'm wrong). And after that you'll anyway loose your AF and with that dim viewfinder(yes the viewfinder image will be dark) it'll be extremely difficult to focus.

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

As for 24-105mm it's costly, yeah. There are Sigma/Tamron lenses (24-70mm) in the similar range available. But IQ wise I doubt that any of them will hold any water in front of 24-105mm although I'm looking to buy one such cheaper alternative. I'm not exactly a prime lens guy as I prefer Zooms as of now.

BTW, we are digressing, the initial point of discussion was whether it's F2.8 or F4 and for f4 all I can say that many people who are on the verge of shifting to pro quality lenses can use the price of F4's to their benefit. Say a 70-200mm f4 over 2.8 or 17-40 f4 over a 16-35 f2.8. And that savings will still leave you some more money to spend on that costly 24-105mm f4 ;-)
Regards,

No point buying 17-40 f4 or 16-35 f2.8, rather buy Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, just remember to buy a quality uv filter, since its focusing distance is so close, people run into things trying to get a little bit too close.

Originally Posted by Proxima

What would you recommend for an amateur, it_inspector? Canon 55-250 or sigma 70-300? Or something else?

As long as it is less than 250USD.

Depends on what reach are you looking for. Also don`t rule out secondhand items from bhphoto and similar.

Originally Posted by Guna

Tele converter is a tube like adopter which sits between the camera body and the lense and it increases the zoom power of the lense by certain factor, like 1.4 times or 2 times.

Yep, it also slows the lens down by same factor. For example a 200mm f2 with a 2x TC will be 400mm f4.

Sorry to rain on the parade but none of TC`s are good enough. I would rather buy a crop body which will give me better results. Or just use FF body and crop.

Originally Posted by livyodream

I have a doubt in this, hope to get an answer.
I have a SIGMA 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO LENS used in 1000D. So if i use a 2X tele-converter (adapter) will it become 140-600 ??? Is it what it means to say? does it actually work? I mean 600 is like extreme for what we are paying for.
correct me if im wrong.

Yep, 70-300mm will be 40-600mm but it will be a f8-11.2 and since its true performance lied at f8, now it will be at f16. Almost useless.

Just get Sigma 50-500mm and it will be 75-750mm with a 1.5x crop body. There is a sigma 1.4x TC available for it but i never use TC`s so cannot say anything based on experience.

Originally Posted by SPARKled

I guess I am prime guy so cant see myself spending so much on such slow zooms....snip....

Both Zooms and Primes have certain issues and both fall into there own categories.

Most of the consumer primes start performance good at f5.6-f6.3, since this is what they were designed to do while most of the zooms are sharpest at f8. Of course i am excluding Leica here, even 50mm f0.95 is sharper than a surgeons knife.

Also 24-105mm is pretty good range and most of the people love it. Remember everyone has an individual need when it comes to reach.

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

I doubt that you won't even be able to mount that 70-300mm on that 2x TC. The TC's are made with a protruding element most of the time and not compatible to all lenses. May be you can use a extension tube but i think then you won't be able to focus at infinity(correct me if I'm wrong). And after that you'll anyway loose your AF and with that dim viewfinder(yes the viewfinder image will be dark) it'll be extremely difficult to focus.

Extension tubes are a different thing to TC`s. Extension tubes are for MACRO purposes while TC is used to introduce a factor to increase reach.