Jeff and Gibson GDG!

[Cody Covey]

Hey I've been trying to get out and shoot pictures a bit more lately and I've been reading that the lens I have, the 70-300mm EF is a notoriously soft lens especially out past 200mm. What I am wonder is with my limited budget would I better off getting a sigma lens to save a bit of money. Do the Sigma lenses provide good IQ? I think I should be able to swing $500-$600 for a new lens. So what do you guys recommend?

[subroc]

Where have you read that?

I expect it was from someone that also said only an "L" would do.

The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is a solid performer. It may be a bit soft at 300mm but you will not find a better performer, with it's feature set, at that price point. The Canon will outperform the Sigma.

You said you have the lens, what have you seen in service rather than what have you read?

BTW, I have the lens. I also have a 100-400mm and if I need the lighter weight 70-300mm and don't think I need the focal length of the 400mm I don't believe I have significantly lesser performing equipment.

Go take some images and form your own opinion.

[Cody Covey]

Yes the USM IS is miles ahead of the version I have. Mine is just the standard EF no IS. It IS soft especially out any further than about 175-200mm. It also is slow to autofocus.

[subroc]

is it a 70-300mm or a 75-300mm?

[Cody Covey]

is it a 70-300mm or a 75-300mm?

lol....75-300 sorry

[david gibson]

imho you are not likely to spend $500-700 for a sigma lens that will significantly outperform what you have, at least not in a range visible to the naked eye. lenses in that price range are all going to have pitfalls, and you have to test them to see which one fits your particular needs. one may take great portraits with awesome bokeh, the other great action shots with a faster AF for example, so the choice is dependent on you.

you should be able to take your camera and laptop into a camera shop and shoot images and downlad and see what you like. or, you could save your change and soda bottles for a while longer and then get a medium range lens - the time you wait till you get it will be worth it with the years of better performance. the better the glass, the better the image, and they depreciate very little if at all.

[Cody Covey]

Okay thanks, I am getting a ton of noise even at 400 ISO. Is that from lens or body? I only have a Rebel XT but not sure if it is worth it to upgrade the body and have to wait longer for glass or get lens and get proficient at shooting with what i have

[Cody Covey]

heres an example. I'm just starting out essentially but you can see its pretty soft

[david gibson]

noise is going to come from the sensor, i.e. the camera.
as far as thebird pic, too little to go by. what was your shutter speed/fstop?? a lot of lens softness issues are related to the fstop as well as zoom level. typically thet are sharper in the midrange, around F8, but good quality lenses hold the same sharpness throughout.
by looking at the birds tail i see movement (from the bird), so i am guessing a slow shutter speed. therefore, camera movement will cause motionless parts of the image to look soft as well.


so it is very hard to analyze this, no control. take a shot of something with detail, a wet yellow lab in not-harsh sunshine is good, sun behind you, and use a tripod or a t least a much faster shutter speed, over 1/1000

www.dpreview.com does very indepth analyses of most everything digital camera related, i am sure they have this lens. they will tell you where its good and bad spots are.....

[subroc]

lol....75-300 sorry

oh...

That lens is different than the 70-300mm that I have. I know very little about it other than there have been a few differnt models of it, some better than others.