Disney Information Station Logo

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Just for Fun > Photography Board
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS UpdatesDIS email updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-04-2006, 10:49 AM   #31
jann1033
Right now I'm an inch of natural and a foot of unnatural
The time has come to break out of my mold
 
jann1033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,553

thanks even with my magnifying glass i couldn't figure it out
__________________
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that don't work.” Thomas Alva Edison


The Poetry of Light website
jann1033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 10:51 AM   #32
JR6ooo4

The Dr. Seuss of Poo
Using kerosene lanterns for light? Kerosene, who are you kidding? When did they invent kerosene?
 
JR6ooo4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arlington Heights, Illinois (26 miles Northwest of Walt's Birthplace)
Posts: 11,139

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Grannell
portrait orientation problem only happens on lenses with serial number:

xx0xxxxx
xx1xxxxx
and some of xx2xxxx

if you have xx3xxxxx or xx25xxxx (and beyond), you're safe.
THey progress numericaly, correct?
My 08003578 is way past the bad numbers?

Mikeeee
JR6ooo4 is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 07-04-2006, 10:58 AM   #33
PoohJen
Willing to share a Mickey Bar?
I brought it with me everywhere on my Disney cruise
Quick, get to the hammock!- Castaway Cay
 
PoohJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: a Yankee in Virginia
Posts: 3,007

mikeee, fabulous shots! I am drooling!!!

I'm thinking $300 range (I'll need to earn some stripes before I can spend the $$ on the IS). Any thoughts on Tamron or Sigma? Or does the non-IS canon usurp both?
__________________
My laughing place... Disneyland-1971, 76 Carib Beach'90 Dixie Landings/POR - '95, '04, '05, '06 SSR '07, AP 03-04
MNSSHP '04, '05, '06 MVMCP '07 and a few All Star quickies DCL Magic Nov '04 Eastern Trip Report Magic Wstrn Dbl Dip Aug '06 Trip Report, Wonder Dec '07 Trip Report Magic Dble Dip Aug '09 Trip Report Wonder Feb '10 DCL Dream July '11, Aug '13
PoohJen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 12:33 PM   #34
pisco
Mouseketeer
 
pisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Brighton, CO
Posts: 255

What I learned in my research was that the Sigma is the best of the 7x-300 non IS zooms. However, the Canon 70-300 is optically superior to the Sigma even without the IS. Adding IS made it a no-brainer for me.
pisco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 12:51 PM   #35
Anewman
Likes it topped with relish
We stopped in Atlanta
abc
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lower Uncton
Posts: 6,439

Little late I know.

PoohJen, while I do recommend the IS versions of Canon lenses. IMO they are not really optimal for sports, except maybe golf(or other more stationary sports).

The number one mistake made by newish sports shooters is shutter speed too slow, for high school sports at full zoom you really should be aiming for 1/1000th and minimum 1/800th. And maybe a little slower with girls sports, but only if light does not allow the desired shutter speed. The use of IS may actually slow down the shutter a couple stops, which is not really the goal.

These were taken with the $140 Canon 70-300mm, I only use this when I have no access to the field and shoot through the chain link fence. Never use a tripod, but If I have sideline access I do take a monopod.









Quote:
Originally Posted by PoohJen

I'm thinking $300 range (I'll need to earn some stripes before I can spend the $$ on the IS). Any thoughts on Tamron or Sigma? Or does the non-IS canon usurp both?
I am not sure about the "OPTICS" compared to Canon, but USM on the Canons is faster IMO. We are talking about shooting sports right...
Anewman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 05:12 PM   #36
PoohJen
Willing to share a Mickey Bar?
I brought it with me everywhere on my Disney cruise
Quick, get to the hammock!- Castaway Cay
 
PoohJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: a Yankee in Virginia
Posts: 3,007

As always, love your baseball (& softball) shots, anewman!! Yes, talking about sports shots, mostly. mine were thru a chainlink fence too; nowhere near as clear as yours! I need to practice, practice, practice! I tried playing w/ speeds, but mostly used the sports setting on the XT.

I just checked the info on some of the shots I took w/ the 300 - the shutter speed was way too slow - 1/500! Dunno how I did that. I did notice on some of the clearer shots at 300mm that I could see my sons freckles clearly! Pretty impressive!
__________________
My laughing place... Disneyland-1971, 76 Carib Beach'90 Dixie Landings/POR - '95, '04, '05, '06 SSR '07, AP 03-04
MNSSHP '04, '05, '06 MVMCP '07 and a few All Star quickies DCL Magic Nov '04 Eastern Trip Report Magic Wstrn Dbl Dip Aug '06 Trip Report, Wonder Dec '07 Trip Report Magic Dble Dip Aug '09 Trip Report Wonder Feb '10 DCL Dream July '11, Aug '13
PoohJen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 07:38 PM   #37
spoon2003
DIS Veteran
 
spoon2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 609

Back ordered

Looks like this highly recommended Canon 70-300 IS lens is back ordered in most of the reputable, resonably priced sellers. (B&H, Adorama, Beach, I even checked the dreaded Dell !!)

Sue
spoon2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 07:51 PM   #38
Kelly Grannell
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,372

It's extremely in high demand. I sold mine used for MORE than brand new because it's out of stock anywhere. Nothing wrong with my lens but I find that f/5.6 is way too slow of a lens for my needs (y'know, indoor, crazy low-light)
Kelly Grannell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2006, 08:03 PM   #39
PoohJen
Willing to share a Mickey Bar?
I brought it with me everywhere on my Disney cruise
Quick, get to the hammock!- Castaway Cay
 
PoohJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: a Yankee in Virginia
Posts: 3,007

zoom lens comparisons...?

as follow up to an earlier post...

I'm looking for a zoom lens for my XT. Currently have a Sigma 18-125.

I have read mixed (i.e., poor) review on the canon 75-300 and the canon 100-300 (both not IS). What do the DisBoard experts thinK?

Also, a Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro has been recommended. Thoughts?

Finally (thanks Crash!) the canon 70-300 IS was recommended, but I think too pricey for me at the moment. (also, what about the out-of-production 75-300 IS?)

This would be mostly for sports and shooting animals/birds from a distance (I like to go kayaking on remote creeks).

TIA!
__________________
My laughing place... Disneyland-1971, 76 Carib Beach'90 Dixie Landings/POR - '95, '04, '05, '06 SSR '07, AP 03-04
MNSSHP '04, '05, '06 MVMCP '07 and a few All Star quickies DCL Magic Nov '04 Eastern Trip Report Magic Wstrn Dbl Dip Aug '06 Trip Report, Wonder Dec '07 Trip Report Magic Dble Dip Aug '09 Trip Report Wonder Feb '10 DCL Dream July '11, Aug '13
PoohJen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2006, 08:33 PM   #40
spoon2003
DIS Veteran
 
spoon2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 609

I tried the 75-300 usm is..

someone was selling one locally for $300, I went and tried it and was not impressed. It was not sharp (I can't tell the technical stuff), I just wasn't happy with it, can't really tell if IS did anything. Could be that particular copy or just me not knowing much about IS lenses .

I'm saving my pennies for the Canon 70-300 IS. Figure I have a little time since it's backordered everywhere. Hopefully production will be back on track and it'll be available in the fall for kids' soccer season; or winter for basketball season; or our April cruise!!

Sue from Boston
spoon2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2006, 08:35 PM   #41
Furgus
DIS Veteran
 
Furgus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 626

I have a Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6, and I like it. I have a D50 and it is my first dSLR, so hopefully next year I can get a nice prime Marco lens and a nicer zoom lens. BUt I have been pretty pleased with it. If you want to see some of my shots you can look at my blog listed as my website.
Furgus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2006, 08:47 PM   #42
Anewman
Likes it topped with relish
We stopped in Atlanta
abc
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lower Uncton
Posts: 6,439

For sports the old faithfull lens is the 70-200L(2.8 or 4.0).

But if on a budget get the 75-300 USM, Focus speed is more important than OPTICAL quality when it comes to sports. Canon USM is much faster than the Sigma or tamron offerings.

IS is great, but it is of no real use when it comes to shooting sports.
Anewman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2006, 11:31 PM   #43
0bli0
2006 Time Magazine Person of the Year
 
0bli0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 863

avoid the Canon 90-300 (both USM and w/out USM) and 100-300 as they're slow AF and optically fairly poor.

the 70-300 IS is a very nice lens. sure, it's not an 'L', but the contrast is decent, there isn't too much chromatic aberation, and the IS works well (for animals, not sports). the 75-300 was a decent lens, but the IS was the first - very hard on batteries and not as good as the recent generations.

and yes, the Canon 70-200 models are all very good.

sigma does make a few very good zooms:
-120-300 F2.8 EX - fantastic lens and worth the price
-50-500 EX (aka 'Bigma'). this is my primary outdoor sports lens. i personally prefer this over the Canon 100-400 IS because i hate push/pull
-70-200 F2.8 EX - great colour, quick AF, and fantastic sharpness. almost as good as the Canon 2.8L

and a few decent Sigma zooms
-100-300 F4 EX colour is pretty good - beautiful bokeh for a lens this long. not as sharp until about F7.1
-300-800 EX - only lens at this distance. needs a very good tripod. not as sharp as most EX glass. if you have to ask the price, it's not for you...

also the 300 F2.8 is a great lens. sharp almost wide open, fast (AF and aperture), and great contrast. the only downside is for all that money, you want want a white label (aka look at me with my 'L'!).

avoid the following Sigma lenses:
-170-500 - soft and slow
-135-400 - slow AF. not too bad over F8. needs to be rechipped if you are getting the non DG version. not worth the price, IMHO.
-28-200, 28-300 - who are they kidding with the red stripes? these are often sold as quantary through Wolf/Ritz. slow, no Hypersonic. lots of chromatic issues.
-80-400 EX OS - the OS is no where as nice as Canon IS. it under-compensates, over-compensates, and eats the batteries. mode 2 when shooting landscape orientation isn't as bad - presumably because it's only compensating in one direction (designed for panning like motorsports). with OS off, it's nicely sharp and beautiful bokeh. but it's only a few bucks cheaper than the 100-400 IS L...
0bli0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2006, 07:06 AM   #44
PoohJen
Willing to share a Mickey Bar?
I brought it with me everywhere on my Disney cruise
Quick, get to the hammock!- Castaway Cay
 
PoohJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: a Yankee in Virginia
Posts: 3,007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anewman
For sports the old faithfull lens is the 70-200L(2.8 or 4.0).
LOL Anewman, I am hopelessly green with all the technical stuff, but the one thing I have learned about lenses is L = $$$

Thanks for the answers! Looks like I've got a little more research ahead of me...
__________________
My laughing place... Disneyland-1971, 76 Carib Beach'90 Dixie Landings/POR - '95, '04, '05, '06 SSR '07, AP 03-04
MNSSHP '04, '05, '06 MVMCP '07 and a few All Star quickies DCL Magic Nov '04 Eastern Trip Report Magic Wstrn Dbl Dip Aug '06 Trip Report, Wonder Dec '07 Trip Report Magic Dble Dip Aug '09 Trip Report Wonder Feb '10 DCL Dream July '11, Aug '13
PoohJen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2006, 11:10 AM   #45
mhutchinson
An Original Mouseketeer
 
mhutchinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 312

The 70-200 f/4 L is a very nice outdoor lens (or flash supported inside), I took this option instead of the 70-300 IS USM because the price is so close and the picture quality is better with the L. Of the two IS models 75-300 and the newer 70-300, you might want to avoid the 75-300 because it does go soft near 200mm. But if you really want an investment pick up the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS with a 1.4X teleconverter II, you'll get about the same range (70-200mm @f/2.8 and 98-280mm @f/4.0) PLUS it is a great way to drop a lot of money at once.... with a bonus of Lens envy to others around you

The lens is an investment, it usually stays around after the camera bodies have changed. I will still grab some of the older 35mm EF lenses that I have to mount on my 20D and they work just fine.

Mike
mhutchinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dof, photography



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone order there contact lenses online? mckinley Budget Board 5 09-15-2009 09:21 PM
Iphone owners, how do you zoom with the camera? Jillpie Community Board 6 09-11-2009 07:34 AM
My blonde moment + Question for contact lense wearers? imabrat Teen Disney 8 09-11-2009 07:33 AM
Do you still use the Kit Lenses? NateNLogansDad Photography Board 15 08-25-2009 12:01 AM

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

You Rated this Thread: