No Subject

From: jimnjen not home NOSPAM yahoo
Subject: Newbie lense question
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
User-Agent: OSXnews 2.081
Content-Type: text/plain
References:
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:23:46 -0500
Lines: 40
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.235.106.195
X-Trace: sv3-Ud8TeqvM9XArxbhTesuUUyI1ZEJY6XJFBybKFo/kSguVc5w1eSJW0WAJozRSKSppmfO2evvXmaHIV26!Vs+Lx2bGJ y/L8uCvyr6yUYGDJUvgriqAkPoGvD1YcLCs4x522vIzoJOdULDDt uhSlV650ofj/Eeq
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.photo.digital:1380388


"Dennis McCrohan" wrote:

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
...


So I'm interested in whether anyone can offer any opinions on how the
inexpensive telephoto lenses from these manuafacturers compare, and
whether any one is noticably better than the other. We are strictly
amateur picture-takers - may main interest in having a telephoto lense
will be able to take moderatly long-distant pics of my kids playing
sports outdoors. For this, I will generally use a mono-pole intead of a
tripod.

Here is a link to a shot taken with a Canon 75-300 IS lens at full zoom:

http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1056.jpg

I also have the big and heavy and expensive Canon 100-400 L lens and have
shot test (using a tripod) pictures with both lenses at 300 mm. The L
glass is indeed noticeably sharper, but not so much so that most folks
would notice. When I bought the L lens, I intended to sell the 75-300 ...
but after hefting the L lens and comparing shots, I kept the 75-300 ...
it's a lens that I can walk around with and still get some good wildlife
shots.

Thanks, but I'm not really looking at the image-stabalization option. After
just investing $700 in the camera, it would be an impossible sell to the
wife. I had already prepared her for "about $150" in further expense... so
that's probably it! So I'm probably stuck doing the best I can with a non-IS
telephoto lense and the monopole. Which makes me wonder whether 300mm is
even realistic, maybe I should only get a xx-200mm zoom?

Amazon is currently offering a Sigma 70-300 F/4-5.6 (which I gather is the
same as a Quantaray) for $120, so right at the moment I'm leaning in that
direction....

Thanks,



Even a 200mm hand held is tough. I am from the N* camp, but these
comments are universal. In the Nikon world I own a 70-300 lightweight
3.5/4.5 Zoom. Its nice when I don't want the weight. But is slow and except
at the full 300 zoom, sharp with decent contrast. I also own a 80-200
F2.8. Expensive, but quick fast and razor sharp. I would not think of
using the 80/200 without a sturdy (ie. expensive) tripod. Any camera
movement would mask the quality of the lens. Monopods don't help much.
A decent one is still expensive and still not very stable. If you only
have a limited budget then everything is a compromise. I would go with
the Canon lens, and be satisfied. I would save your bucks, and get a
decent Manfrotto triopd when you can afford it. Pass on any camera
support sold at chain stores.. better you learn to hold the camera stable,
these inexpensive pieces of junk will lull you into a false sense of
security.
I guess you will just have to bowl over the wife with some awesome
photos.. so she understands. I just buy my stuff and make sure there is a
really nice necklace in the Christmas wrapper.. makes all the
difference.

Jim







--
Jim