What zoom (up to 300 or so) would you choose?

[agb]

Sorry I'm a bit late to this discussion and I know its a bit more than you might want to spend ($1400 gst paid) but please have a look at the 70-300 f4-5.6 L. Its a superb lens and has the extra reach over the suggested 70-200 lenses. Excellent IS too. Not too heavy, hand hold easily.
Samples here.http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=955129 and
here http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon70300is/
No need for the monopod.

[Mark L]

..... And if I wanted extra reach, a high quality teleconverter for those times when a fast aperture isn't important.

I'm currently looking at doing this.

[arthurking83]

Yeah, mee too Mark.

My only question(rhetorical and to myself really), is the highest quality TC for your specific camera system(usually camera manufacturer branded and manufactured), better than an a thirdparty manufacturer's equivalent, even on the thirdparty manufactured lenses!!

So(rhetorically and hypothetically), if I have a Sigma 70-200/2.8 instead of the Canon version, but I also want a TC for those times when it can be handy to have .. Is the Canon TC going to provide better IQ on the Sigma lens, than the Sigma equivalent TC would on it's own lenses??

In my real situation, the Nikon 2x version III teleconverter has come down to reasonable and affordable pricing levels, so it's almost a no brainer now to acquire what is technically the best 2x TC for the Nikon system.
But will it give me better IQ on any third party lenses, I acquire too, or am I better off going with a TC from the lens manufacturer's range(or even a fourth party Kenko TC .. which seem to have very good reputations).

[kiwi]

You are somewhat restricted which teleconverters you use on Sigma lenses....Im pretty sure that for example the Nikon 2xTCIII will be incompatible.

If you cant get what you want on a crop body with a 70-200 and 1.4tc on a soccer field then you are simply too far away to start with

Re a monopod - adds zero as far as image quality and detracts in terms of being flexible with how to point the camera, useful though if said if you are weak or have to hold the lens for ages.

[Ms Monny]

Sorry I'm a bit late to this discussion and I know its a bit more than you might want to spend ($1400 gst paid) but please have a look at the 70-300 f4-5.6 L. Its a superb lens and has the extra reach over the suggested 70-200 lenses. Excellent IS too. Not too heavy, hand hold easily.
Samples here.http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=955129 and
here http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon70300is/
No need for the monopod.

Thanks for the info Graham. I am wondering if the aperture is a little too small and a more useful aperture would be the 2.8? Yes, it becomes a bit weighty, but I guess it would be something I could get use to.

I have decided to rent a couple of different lenses, based on what has been said on here, and give them a go before i decide on which to buy. All I know is that ANYTHING would be better than my kit lens!!

[Mark L]

Yeah, mee too Mark.

My only question(rhetorical and to myself really), is the highest quality TC for your specific camera system(usually camera manufacturer branded and manufactured), better than an a thirdparty manufacturer's equivalent, even on the thirdparty manufactured lenses!!

I have all Canon, and the Kenko x2 supposedly works well, even maintaining AF. Of cause that doesn't help you AK!

[aussie girl]

What size lens is your wife using in that photo please

[Mark L]

^ Since RedL can't answer, and based on post #11, it's probably Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

[Epicaricacy]

Good thread! Based on your recommendation and reviews/test results, I purchased the sigma 70-200 f/2.8, at around $1000. Have been hankering for one for a while, with my eyes on the canon, but to save $1000... well, would be stupid not to. Means I can afford a macro lens now, and the new sigma one looks good there as well.

The question of teleconverters is an interesting one. Would the sigma tc be better in terns of iq than the canon? Does it make any difference? I am on a full frame, so would appreciate the extra reach at times. Shame ther isn't one that can switch from 1.4 to 2 with a switch, so only lose one stop if the extra reach not needed!

thanks for the good info in this thread.

[Ms Monny]

Well, I am currently borrowing the 70-300 canon but I think I will go for a Sigma 70-200 2.8 as I like the extra light that comes with the larger aperture. Both about the same price ($1000 or $1400) and there won't be much more zoom between 200 and 300! Plus extension tubes can come in handy if I need. Pity I can't rent a Sigma to test it out.

[Allan Ryan]

canon 70-200 f2.8 NON IS
http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com...sm-lenses.html
under $1200 and add the tele converter 1.4x later
Just my 2c worth

[geoffsta]

Monika, to be honest, I think a 70 - 200mm will be too short, even with an extention. Might be ok for the footy. But the next step could possibly be birding, as Mary Anne suggested earlier.
Nothing wrong with the siggy 150-500mm 5.6 - 6.3 with IS for under a grand. And with what you save, you could get a reasonable tripod/monopod combination, which would cover most of what you are after.
Sure, if you are as serious about birding as Richard Hall, or as Kiwi with sport, then yes, spend the big bucks. They have dedicated lenses for what they do. (Which by the way make a 70-200 look like a kit lens) And by the look of some of your more recent posts, I think you have a lens that does cover landscapes and portraiture very well. All that will be left would be a macro, and you'll have all the bases covered.

[Ms Monny]

hmmm, food for thought!! I used the 20-300 yesterday when out doing landscapes and, yes I even tried a bird or two and found it that bit too short! If I get the 150-500, I am stuck with my crappy kit lens to cover the 55-150 range....I think I need to win a lottery....or start selling on the streets (my photos, not me! )

I am looking at the 10-20mm Sigma lens for my landscapes as well, but that isn't as important right now.

Decisions, decisions!

[geoffsta]

....or start selling on the streets (my photos, not me! )

Yes you do have a husband and kids to consider... Hmm. It's priorities verses price I'm afraid. There is nothing wrong with a 55-200mm kit lens, if treated as such.

[Ms Monny]

Oh, don't worry, Geoff, I will be getting a new lens soon!! My hubby and the boys collect model cars @ around $300 a pop (some are less)...they have 7 collectively! So, I think I deserve a new lens or two myself.....just need to stop buying photographic magazines!

- - - Updated - - -

Regarding that kit lens...great for a back-up but not good if I want to print large-ish pictures (20 inch or so)...I need as much sharpness as I can get!

[dulvariprestige]

I've had the 70-200 os sigma for a while now, great lens, and works well with the sigma 1.4 TC.

[Ms Monny]

Jayde, that sounds great that the 1.4 TC goes well with it. Would I be able to ask for an image or two, taken with the 1.4TC, to see its potential?

[dulvariprestige]

This is one of the first ones I took when I got the TC
280mm f4

Cormorant by Jayde Aleman, on Flickr

[Epicaricacy]

Have added u as a Flickr contact Jayde... Would like to browse ur images at a later date!

[Ms Monny]

Jayde, that is pretty impressive. I was speaking to someone yesterday about getting the 200mm and a TC with it, and they boo-hooed the idea and said the quality of the image would be compromised.
Well, that looks pretty darn good to me!