 Tom |
IS lenses compatible with Canon Rebel XT I recently purchased a Canon Rebel XT with some pretty basic lenses. I have a Sigma 28-70mm 1:2.8-4 and a Sigma 70-300mm 1:4-5.6. Package deal thing. I'm considering much better quality lenses and looking for some input on Canon's IS lenses such as the EF24-105 f/4L IS lens and their EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens. Wow, they are expensive, are they worth it? What's out there that's like it that may be less expensive ($500 or so instead of $1400+) that still offers a similar range as these lenses for general photos and sports/wildlife phots with image stabilization?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Image Stabilization is definitely "worth it" if you can afford it. But it is more a convenience feature than a necessity. It works no better tha a tripod, and a f/4-5.6 zoom with IS is not necessarily better than an f/2.8 lens without it. For Canon users, the only non-Canon alternative that has image stabilization is the Sigma 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 EX DG APO OS (OS = Optical Stabilizer). At ~$1000 it is about $400 less than the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, but a bit slower and noisier at AF since it has conventional AF motor v. the Canon's ring-USM. I would not be too quick to ditch the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6. For the price it is a decent performer. The least expensive alternative that has IS is the discontinued Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, but it isn't any sharper optically. The new EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM (~$550) is very sharp, but some samples have a problem when used in the portrait orientation that Canon is investigating (See the Canon Service Notice). Otherwise, if you want sharper optics and faster shutter speeds to stop action, and don't mind trading away some of the telephoto reach, then the EF 70-200 f/4L USM (~$580) and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG (~$840). Similar for the 28-70 f/2.8-4. It is inexpensive, but is not a bad lens. However, 28-70 is not a particularly good focal length range for the Rebel XT as it does not give you anything approaching wide angle. A more appropriate general purpose zoom for that camera would have a zoom range starting at about 17mm or 18mm. I would be more inclined to replace this lens than the 70-300. Good choices are (in descending price order)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Chance |
Another thing to consider, especially if you are using the lens for sports, wildlife or any kind of action photography is the speed of the autofocus. The Canon 100-400 uses Ultrasonic motor which is extremely fast, especially for a lens of this focal length. The IS feature on this lens gives you two options. Option one corrects for both horizontal and vertical movement. Option two, corrects only for vertical movement allowing you to pan a subject without the lens trying to compensate for the panning. Also, there is a distance limiter which also helps speed up the AF. In the normal mode, it will allow the lens to focus to it's absolute minimum. Or, to avoid fishing, switch the lens to limit the near focus to 6.5meters, so if the lens does have to fish due to foreground objects, it isn't wasting time going all the way to min.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom |
Thanks for the great advice. For the "sports" lens, I tried the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L. Very nice. As you mentioned, the speed is quick and the picture quality was much more like what I expected when I purchased the camera. Particulalrly for a rookie. I'll probably settle on it. I'm going to look at the EF-S 17-85 today. I'm sure I'll be pleased with it as well. thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Chance |
Glad to be of help Tom. Those are the only two lenses I own at the time. The 17-85mm and the 100-400mm. Bob
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||