Newbie with long lens question

[footdoc66]

Just got 40D with 28-135 IS. I'm take a lot of pics at my kids soccer games, many from midfield, he plays striker so there is a good distance to cover. I need a lens on limited funds (~$500 US). Based on recommendations I have seen on these forums I am looking at Tamron 18-250 XR Di II (from Canoga camera via ebay), Tamron 28-300, Sigma 18-200 OS, Sigma 70-300 APO, Sigma 400 5.6 APO and possibly but out of my range at this time, the Canon 70-300 DO. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. I also like to shoot at minor league hockey games so the faster the better. Thanks for your help. This is my first post here and I like the respect that I see others treated with here. It is different on other forums :eek:

[mcenut]

I shot my daughter's soccer game with my 20D and Canon 70-200mm F/4 (non IS) lens and found myself wanting for a little more distance. I would suggest the Canon EF 70-300mm IS (not the DO model) which is just a few dollars out of your $500 budget. This lens has good optics and the all important USM focus motor so your subjects are quickly in focus. The IS isn't going to help you with a moving object but will limit image blur due to hand jitter at the long (300mm) side.

Ignore the Sigma and Tamron lenses. Their focus motor is way too slow in my opinion. I sold my Tamron 18-200mm lens two years after I bought it for that very reason.

[coldrain]

Yes, for quality tele zoom, forget about all the lenses you mentioned and go for the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM (not the DO lens). It is relatively affordable, and is sharp and contrasty upto 300mm. The DO lens is not as good, it is more expensive because of a special optical element that allows the lens to be shorter than normal.

The Sigma and Tamron ultra zoom lenses only offer a convenient focal range, but optically they all make a few (or a lot) optical compromises to get that zoom range.

[DonSchap]

Without a doubt ... unless you look at the Tokina AT-X 840 AF D II 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6which has faster focusing response compared to a 70-300, and great focal range. The Tokina 80-400mm is the lightest (~36-oz.) and longest ranged telephoto of its kind. It really is worth a look ... I know I really like mine.

30618


Your next best bet would be the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. While you surrender some of the reach and speed of the Tokina, you will be sporting "anti-shake", that can help out with the longer focal length when handheld.

30619


Always a fun call ... I do believe if you want a snappier and longer look ... go Tokina.

[footdoc66]

Don, is the Tokina you mention the D II or the D. There are a few on eBay that are the D but I don't see the D II. Are they the same or is the II a newer model.
Thank you

[coldrain]

The Tokina 80-400 is not a super lens, OP. It is not great above 300mm, for sharp photos one needs to stop down over f8 for instance.
If you do want 400mm on a budget, the Sigma 135-400 is a better option.

The Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM is a very good lens, it is sharp at 300mm into the corners (even on full frame), very good optics for the money.

[DonSchap]

Coldrain,

your review information is on the older model ...

AT-X 840 Model I
30623

... so please be fair to the OP BEFORE you run him in another direction.

The AT-X 840 Model II (New & Improved)
30624

has corrected the problem the original had and is clearly the model of choice for Canon or Nikon. The Model II is not currently being made for the SONY or Pentax.

You many enjoy coming up short with the 70-300mm ... but there are others looking for tad bit more range out of their glass. The SIGMA 135-400mm (effectively a 216-640mm focal length after DCF is factored in) is a far cry from 80-400mm (effectively 128-640mm) and the SIGMA lens weighes a bloated 10 ounces more for the loss.


If you examine the outer shell, you can clearly see that the compromises of Model I are missing in Model II.

Thanks

[coldrain]

The "model one" and "model 2" are the same optically....
The housing has changed look, I think the AF had some changes, and the coatings are changed.
So, no, this one still does not perform a lot different, from the what you call "model 1". I never referred to "model 1" though?

[DonSchap]

The "model one" and "model 2" are the same optically....

I suggest you research this just a lil' more ... I know, because I did. Check the internal element changes and the addition of LD glass, this round.

Thanks, again

[nqjudo]

I agree with what Coldrain says above concerning the Canon 70-300 DO vs. the non-DO version. There is no way that the DO version is worth twice the price. Optically, the non-DO version is just as good if not better. In fact, the 70-300 IS is an excellent lens overall.

The only other lens in this thread that I have enough experience with to compare with the Canon 70-300IS is the Sigma 70-300 APO. My personal opinion is that you would be better served by the Canon. You can pick up excellent used units for around 450 - 475$ these days. Good luck.

[coldrain]

I suggest you research this just a lil' more ... I know, because I did. Check the internal element changes and the addition of LD glass, this round.

Thanks, again
The "D" lens has 1 (ONE) SD element (SD in Tokina speak is "Super Low Dispersion" glass).

What do they say about the "Tokina AT-X 840 AF-II 80-400mm f4.5-5.6", the 2nd version of what you call "model 1", has... you guessed it, one element of SD glass.
As did the "Tokina AT-X 840 AF 80-400mm f4.5-5.6" as far as I know, the 1st version of what you call "model 2".

It may well be that user experiences of the "D"-version are a little bit more positive because of better contrast for instance, but I yet have to find a review (or impressive results) that finds the Tokina 80-400 actually a good lens (pop photo does not count, I said review... not garbage :D:p).

The Sigma 135-400mm f4.5-5.6 DG is not perfect either, but my opinion is that it will perform a better than the Tokina 80-400mm at the longer focal lengths. And it is a bit cheaper at the moment too, I think.

[DonSchap]

The "D" lens has 1 (ONE) SD element (SD in Tokina speak is "Super Low Dispersion" glass).

What do they say about the "Tokina AT-X 840 AF-II 80-400mm f4.5-5.6", the 2nd version of what you call "model 1", has... you guessed it, one element of SD glass.
As did the "Tokina AT-X 840 AF 80-400mm f4.5-5.6" as far as I know, the 1st version of what you call "model 2".

It may well be that user experiences of the "D"-version are a little bit more positive because of better contrast for instance, but I yet have to find a review (or impressive results) that finds the Tokina 80-400 actually a good lens (pop photo does not count, I said review... not garbage :D:p).

The Sigma 135-400mm f4.5-5.6 DG is not perfect either, but my opinion is that it will perform a better than the Tokina 80-400mm at the longer focal lengths. And it is a bit cheaper at the moment too, I think.


Well, if the OP can get himself into a camera shop ... he can drive both for himself and decide. Personally ... SIGMA can keep the ten extra ounces.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is king ... in it's class ... but the 80-400mm doesn't quite fit there. I have noticed, using several 70-300s, that they are ALL kind of tardy in focus response. Even the "king."

True, once you've been spoiled by a 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 (again, we're out of class, here) ... even with a T/C on it ... it's hard to rate anything fairly again ... but, the 70-300mm has a noticeable length of "time to focus."

Somewhere in between these two lens classes is the 80-400mm, as far as "time to focus" goes. I can appreciate that in both sports and nature shooting. The cost between a 70-200mm f/4 and the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is pretty close. The benefit of the longer lens is undoubtably its reach. :cool:

Physically comparing the TAMRON 70-300 to the Tokina 80-400 ... the 80-400 is only 1/2" longer and has roughly the same barrel width. The weight is quite a bit more, due to its all-metal rugged construction. The 70-300 is a plastic construct ... so the benefit is directly to weight.

Hey ... the 80-400 is in my standard tote (sling) bag, mounted on the A700 (the TAMRON 17-50 f/2.8 and the SONY 50mm f/1.4 are in there, also). You could call it: "One player - covering the outfield" :p

[coldrain]

Hey ... it's in my standard tote (sling) bag. :p
Something being in your bag is not necessarily a recommendation though :p... you have the weirdest stuff in that bag of yours. Says little about optical quality (although some lenses "in your bag" are very nice, like that Sony 70-200 f2.8).

[DonSchap]

Something being in your bag is not necessarily a recommendation though :p... you have the weirdest stuff in that bag of yours. Says little about optical quality (although some lenses "in your bag" are very nice, like that Sony 70-200 f2.8).

Unfortunately, the "big gun" isn't in my bag for the next couple of weeks ... and is currently being repaired for an "aperture release" issue that I recently found. I didn't want to make a big deal about it, because I figure it was another manufacturing flaw we all get occasionally. It was stuck at a constant f/2.8 during shutter release. The aperture "Preview" button (at the base of the A700's lens mount) would eventually jar it/ electrically force it free ... but not during a shot. It has to be repaired or replaced. SONY is replacing the entire lens for me. I'm just out the lens for the "shipping" swap-time.

Aside from that, it is considerably heavier than the Tokina ... LOL ... when it does come back, it will get used for the holidays, for alot of the indoor work, along with the 17-50 f/2.8. But, once again ... the OP is talking about reach ... outdoors. Sure, I can throw a 2x T/C on the 70-200, but I cut off the wide-end ... without removing it. That 2x T/C is $449 from SONY (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=11039913) (<- click here) and that was AFTER a $199 price reduction! :eek: You can almost buy the Tokina 80-400 lens for that. :) Heck, I got mine for $305. There are no new "Model 1" for SONY, out there, that I could find.

Having two cameras to support ... the A100 and the A700 ... I'll take the full lenses, thank you very much. :o When I hand off the second camera to an assistant ... they've, at least, got something usable, too.

Let's face it: "f/4s suck indoors" ... or "If you've got the cash ... you won't need flash"

[coldrain]

The OP will simply not have much fun from a 80-400 Tokina, because you need to stop it down a lot. So a 70-300 IS from Canon will just be a better lens, in just about every regard.

To go beyond 300mm for anything like the OP wants one has to go above $1000.

I remember your angry scribblings about Canon's quality control (even though your Canon stuff never had a problem)... why so lenient on Sony 's QC :eek::rolleyes::p?

And I also remember you saying you never would consider a Sigma lens because of the 1 year warranty... I just now saw that Sony lenses have 1 year warranty only too *yikes*... nice to know the aperture mechanism in your expensive ($2000) Sony 70-200 f2.8 already is having trouble :eek:.... Good luck with that!

[DonSchap]

Look ... I'm going be magnanimous and give SONY a major pass on the quality control involved with the older Minolta lenses they rebadged. I'm pretty certain those people were none-too-happy when they were given their Minolta-generated pink slips during the change over, back in 2005, when existing lens stock went into boxes. It sat quietly until the division was resurrected in March, 2006. Most of it wasn't even available for sale until this year.

I have rarely heard any other complaints about the 70-200mm f/2.8 G and I am really picky about how things work. As far as Canon goes ... no mercy ... they've been big and in business for many, many years without a major disruption of this magnitude. It would be cruel and wholly unfair to expect that type of consistent QC from SONY's DSLR camera division, for the rebadged stuff, at this time. I just want it fixed. I know the lens is a dandy! Definitely worth the $1900 I plunked down for it. Side-by-side ... it appears to be a much nicer construct than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, but that's a judgement call on my part. YMMV. They are both in the "most excellent" class of lenses.

Canon's little QC run-in with the recent 1D MkIII and the 40D releases really concern me, for that reason. Something certainly slipped, because they had plenty of time to research that stuff. If memory serves, the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM wasn't too cool in the vertical mode, either, back in 2006. I know you remember this, too. Can you spell: R-E-C-A-L-L?

The fact that TAMRON has not released its SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD is troublesome, though. I would have liked to have tried one of those prior to the holidays. It doesn't look like it is going to make it, though.

Who knows, Coldrain, perhaps they are quietly putting their "VC" technology in it. That would definitely put a cramp in Canon and Nikon's offerings. :eek:

Ah well, time will tell ... as always :p <- back attacha

In reference to the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF ... the "Model I" is definitely a much better lens on the Advanced SONY than a Canon or Nikon. The SONY A700 seems to be able to get more from it due to its larger sensor (12.2 MP) and the built-in the camera anti-shake features.

Here's 400mm @ f11 at 1/60 sec., distance of 8 feet, handheld.
30627

And the 100% crop
30628

Like I mentioned earlier, it may be stopped down a bit, but it "Looks very sharp & good to me."

Of course, someone always jumps up and says, "Hey ... flash is one thing ... how about ambient Tunsten lighting, where you have to consider extreme ISO? Let's talk some noise, here." Man, there's always one in the crowd.

Okay ... ISO-6400, Aperture = f/5.6 (widest avaialble at 400mm), Shutter-speed = 1/100 sec., Ambient Tunsten lighting ... sheesh :rolleyes:
30629

100% crop
30630

Well, that crop won't win any awards, but you get the idea. You can see how the type and temperature of the lighting can change the whole structure of the image ... and how hard the camera has to work to create a proper exposure.

What's this prove ... flexibility. Same lens ... different lighting ... various adjustments. ISO-6400 does not look all that bad, considering.

[footdoc66]

Don and Coldrain,
Thanks for your help! The two of you certainly have strong, albeit different POV's. This one is a tough call. Factoring out the negatives, it looks like the Tokina is a quicker focus but no IS and IQ drops off at the long end. The Canon is a slower focus but better overall IQ throughout. Costco has the Canon at $549 + tax. The tokina, which seems to be more difficult to find, is a little more. Thanks Don for the pics of the lenses as it is easy to tell the older model by the increased knurling on the proximal ring (ring closer to the camera body). I can only do so much research on the net. Looks like I may have to get off my duff and head out to a shop with my camera body to test drive these babies. I'll probably wind up with something completely different but that's the way life usually works.:)

[footdoc66]

[QUOTE=footdoc66;263886]Don and Coldrain,
Thanks for your help! The two of you certainly have strong, albeit different POV's. This one is a tough call. Factoring out the negatives, it looks like the Tokina is a quicker focus but no IS and IQ drops off at the long end. The Canon is a slower focus but better overall IQ throughout. Costco has the Canon at $549 + tax. The tokina, which seems to be more difficult to find, is a little more. Thanks Don for the pics of the lenses as it is easy to tell the older model by the increased knurling on the proximal ring (ring closer to the camera body). I can only do so much research on the net. Looks like I may have to get off my duff and head out to a shop with my camera body to test drive these babies. I'll probably wind up with something completely different but that's the way life usually works.:)

[coldrain]

Do not believe that the Tokina is faster in focusing, though... Where do you get that from Don? I can not find any information about the Tokina being very fast.

As you can see, wide open the Tokina Don has it pretty poor... stopped down to f11 it is pretty nice. But for sports, you can't stop down to f11... nor can you use flash!

[DonSchap]

Those were indoor shots and with a standard Tunsten light source. Even your much touted Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM has a problem under such conditions. Heck, I'll even toss in a 500mm crop from a TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Just to round out field lenses.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 200mm (wide open) Tunsten
30636

Tokina 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 @ f/5.6 (widest available aperture)
30642

TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 @ f/6.3 (widest available aperture)
30638

So, that would be an unfair method to make a statement concerning sports use. Obviously, if you are going to toss money out for lenses, you want raw speed ... which means f/2.8 or better. All I'm saying is that around $500 ... you can take your pick 80-400mm or 70-300 IS. Frankly, "speed to focus" and "sheer reach" are my choices.

If you need real time experience with the 70-300mm IS, ask Andy! He's out there ... with some experience using it. If memory serves, he wasn't impressed with its "time to focus", either. Oh, it's probably faster than the TAMRON 70-300mm (seems everything is) ... but the Tokina really does have the edge. You just need to experience it for yourself. Fire 'em up and commence fire.

[Honest Gaza]

.....I'm take a lot of pics at my kids soccer games, many from midfield, he plays striker so there is a good distance to cover......the Canon 70-300 DO. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. I also like to shoot at minor league hockey games so the faster the better.

Some shots taken with the Canon 70-300mm IS lens which has been suggested by others. These were taken late afternoon in overcast conditions. I was standing on the sideline (outside the fence area) halfway between the goal line and halfway line.

Camera settings are included for each shot.

Shot of Keeper at "nearest" goal :
30711

Shot of Keeper at "furtherest" goal :
30712

30713

Shot of Keeper at "furtherest" goal :
30714

30715

30716

Hope this helps :)