What lens! what lens!

[Leftseat86]

*This is post #1000 in Aviation-Photography *



Okay...

-Sigma 135-400
-Sigma 170-500
-Canon 75-300 USM III


I'm leaning towards the 170-500...because...you never know when extra length could be handy or open up new oportunities, and it is nice to shoot at effective 800mm with no converter!

Then again, opening at 170mm is abit far...but I'll probably buy a 75-300 III (only about 150$) for that.

As for a short lens...

-Canon 28-105 f/4-5.6
-Canon 22-55 f/4-5.6

I hear the 22-55 is soft, but 22 is nice...with the 1.6x factor. Makes a 34-88mm lens. Any ideas?

-Clovis

[Greg]

I have to 75-300mm III non-USM. It is a very nice lens but I don't know how much zoom you need at LAX. The 75-300mm is a good lens to start with because of the balance of quality and price, but you'll probably want to move up to a bigger Canon lens as money permits. I can't really help with the short lens as the EF-S 18-55mm came with my 300D so that is where my experience lies.

Of course you can make shots from any lens look good.

[Leftseat86]

Well 300 is 480mm with the 1.6x, so thats really "fine" at LAX for pretty much anything. Just depends on what you want to do. There are some specific angles I would like to capture, but would need 400mm or above.

-Clovis

[JeffinDEN]

Clovis,
Read this:

http://www.jetphotos.net/forums/view...ht=crop+factor

I would stay away from the 170-500 lens. It is a geeky looking thing, and it's not an ex lens. If you need that much, go 50-500, it's an EX lens.

Get a wide angle too....those 22 and 24s will not cut it. With the 1.6 crop, you are going to want something closer to 12 or 15.


~jeff

[egll]

I have a 170-500 that you can try if you want Clovis, Let me know and I'll bring it over next month. Here's an example:

[photoid=173129]



Matt

[Spartan13]

I was using a Sigma 70-300mm lens for my Canon Rebel 2000. It was a great lens but I wanted to get closer/tighter shots. So I sold it to a camera store and im saving for a Sigma 50-500 telephoto lens. God I cant wait to have it

[DeltaASA16]

Can a 300D body hold a Sigma 50-500?

Adam

[JeffinDEN]

It will be more like the lens holding that body. Using a lens of that size and weight requires a different technique then when using a 28-80 or similar.

But yes, there should be no reason the 300d wouldn't work with that lens.
I wouldn't try holding it only by the body though.

[Leftseat86]

Jeff, the 50-500 is about a grand more than the 170-500. I work at Sav-On Drugs buddy, that would mean about 3 months salary
Trust me, if I had the money for the 50-500, I'd get a 100-400L anyway...

On the wide side (hey that sounds funny), I'll probably get a 17-35 of some sorts...the Sigma one is about 350$.

All budget lenses for me untill I can get a real job

Matt, please do bring that lens next month, would be great to "try before you buy"

-Clovis

[gocaps16]

Can a 300D body hold a Sigma 50-500?

Adam

Yes, Canon 300D is strong enough to hold a Sigma 50-500mm...thing weighs 4 lbs and not 400lbs.

Kevin

[gocaps16]

Clovis,

come on, LOL....it's a $200-$300 price difference.

The sigma 170-500mm cost $600 and the Sigma 50-500mm I've seen cost $800 and its $900 at BHphotos.com


I would, if I were you, save the extra $300 and get it. You will totally be pleased then the 170-500mm.
Kevin

[Spartan13]

Kevin do you have a Sigma 50-500? if you do what type of camera do you use it on?

[billiam]

Clovis,

come on, LOL....it's a $200-$300 price difference.

The sigma 170-500mm cost $600 and the Sigma 50-500mm I've seen cost $800 and its $900 at BHphotos.com


I would, if I were you, save the extra $300 and get it. You will totally be pleased then the 170-500mm.
Kevin

The Sigma (aka Bigma) 50-500mm is $765 + shipping at deltainternational.com, where I got my Sigma 70-200 2.8. Wish I had gotten the 50-500mm back then, but oh well

[jwenting]

The 50-500 costs about a quarter (or €200) more than the 170-500.
I think it might not be a good choice on cameras with a plastic lensmount due to the high weight which might be more than your lensmount can take for extended periods leading to torsion stress and eventual failure.

The 170-500 is an EXCELLENT alternative if you lack money, steady hands, or a camera with metal lensmount. I've had one for a year now and I'm extremely pleased with the results.
Just take off the hood when shooting wide open at below 300mm and you'll have no trouble with falloff.

[JeffinDEN]

Anyone that carries their lens with the body gets what they deserve. I've used both, and while not a "wide" lens at 50mm, it is much "wider" then the 170mm is. Far more usefull.

Try them out side by side Clovis. And don't forget 1 year no interest fianacing...