New gear
Yesterday at work I lent my trusty Sigma 70-300 to a colleague for the weekend for testing. Also I put an end to my speculation about a better tele zoom lense (I’ve been seriously wondering about that issue at least since last April!) and bought myself a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM. I chose one without IS (Image Stabilization) because the price difference was as big as 400 euros! (For that I can get a Lensbaby 3G and a flash cord and a remote shutter and five riding lessons!)
Actually I really wanted more quality and more reach than the Sigma offered. But finally I chose the quality and compactness over the reach. This is said to be pretty much the best tele zoom lense there is at the moment – the IQ actually comes very close to great prime lenses! With more reach (up to 400 mm) I would’ve ended with a lot more weight and size, less image quality and a bigger price tag – as well as some other cons, too.
I’ll have to wait and see if I like this lense or not. At least I need some getting used to its long physical size compared to my old Sigma: With the zoom in the Sigma is about half of the Canon! Also, Canon’s bag is lousy compared to Sigma’s, and Canon’s hood is huge. And I hate that it’s white!
Here’s one of the very first shots with the Canon (no post-processing, but image size reduced). Just a quick snap (hand held), but I love the sharpness, the colour, the contrast and the bokeh. So, so far so good.
IS???
Erm, sorry (I always nag you about using incomprehensible abbreviations)
IS = Image Stabilization
You got the same one I have and I love it. I didn’t at first because it didn’t reach as far as I wanted it to but I plan on buying a 1.4X teleconverter and that will turn it into almost a 400mm on our Canon 40D’s. In the meantime, it is my second favorite lens, with my macro taking first spot. It IS lightweight for what it does and I’m sure you’ll find that, being an “L” lens, it’s as crisp and sharp as you’d want it to be. Oh, and the bokeh is to die for…
At least the success rate (% of sharp images) is better than with my old lens. But then again, it should be, too, because it costs three times the old Sigma does! The tests say that the 2.8 version isn’t as good optically even though it’s faster – but that speed would be great in conditions with less light…
I’m thinking about the teleconverter, too. I’m just a bit worried how much it will degrade the IQ. And Canon’s one is SOOO expensive, too, that I’m thinking if the Sigma equivalent is as good with less money or not? Have to do some research first.
I’m not really into the “L”-stuff – this one’s good, but there are less decent lenses among the L’s, too. E.g. based on several tests and comparisons I opted out the 17-40 L and bought the Tamron 17-50, and have not regretted it once! Another L I’m considering is the 100-400 IS – once I get rich first, after they’ve remodelled it so that it isn’t a pump anymore but with a zoom ring.