I'm rocking a Canon XTi and am looking for something to reach out a bit farther than my 28-135 lens. Does anyone have any experience with their 75-300 III USM lens - vs comparable Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lens? I wish I had the $ to pick up the IS lens or some really nice L series glass, but that will have to wait. Probably the most demanding subject for a while will be my 4yr old daughter's soccer games this fall. That should be interesting.

I also need to replace my old Walmart junky tripod. It's on it's last leg and won't even fold up all the way anymore. I'm looking for something to hold my XTi with the extra battery pack, flash, and 300mm glass at most. Individually extended legs and at least 70" height.

 

For a tripod check out Manfroto-been around a long time and worth the money. As for lenses Cannon has a great variety and I always prefer to stay with the maker than go aftermarket BUT the aftermarket offers some great lenses too. Go for the fastest glass you can afford and yes a 70-300 should provide you all you need for close up soccer shots. If you have not already checked out this place go to www.b&hphotovideo.com , I have bought many things from them and find their prices to be very good, selection excellent , etc. They also have a nice used selection that might aloow you to get a faster lens for less $$$.

 

I've got a Manfrotto Monopod and like it pretty well. It might pay to stick with them for a tripod.

If I can get a good deal on one I'm considering getting a used Canon 70-200 L f4 lens. The L series glass is really nice. Less zoom than the 300, but needs less light at the end of the zoom. I wonder how well it would work with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter.

 

75-300 = 17 year old, not the best, read lots of poor reviews on that lens

Try its replacement, review here.

All you got to do is review the specs in the reviews to know which is the superior lens

Best of luck!

 

I'm running a Sigma 50-500 through my Canon 20D. Although the Sigma works nice, the AF is a little slow. Someday, I will drop the coin on a Canon 70-200 IS L F2.4...not for a while, though.

This was taken handheld from well over 150m. Really helped that it was a sunny day.



OBTW, you may all ready know this, but if you're running an IS on a tripod, you should turn the IS off (actually creates blur on a tripod). It certainly is nice, though when you're off of the pod.

 

Dead-on advice about turning off IS (or Nikon's VR) on a tripod.

I also have a Bogen monopod, and I'm extremely disappointed with it. It fell apart at my last shoot and never really felt as solid as some of the other pods I've owned. I finally bought a Giottos P-Pod and it's outstanding - far and away the best monopod I've ever owned. Got to use it on this:



For tripods, you could spend tons of dough on a Gitzo or some of the B/M's, but for my money, I'm extremely happy with my Velbon El Carmagne 630 Carbon-Fiber tripod. I have a Kirk ball head, but that may be overkill for you. If so, I get excellent results with a dumb old Slik DX and their own head.

Can't help you with lens as I'm a Nikon guy, but I do agree with what MOE4me said about the Sigma. They're great for the money but slow compared to the USM, IMO. Had a 120-300mm that was optically fantastic but doesn't hold a stick to my 300mm Nikon, especially in terms of speed.

 

I have a 70-200L IS F4 and its really sharp. Excellent lens, we use it all the time. If you can wait, forget the 70-300 and save for the L lens or try to find a used one.

Forget 2X convertors, they loss of resolution is too much. Check out http://75.126.234.18/forum/ ... most ppl will tell you to stay with the 1.4X.

As to using the teleconverter versus say the 100 - 400mm L or the 400 5.6L, most every comparison will tell you there is no way you can touch the prime lens. An alternative is to just forget the zoom since you got up to 135. Just jump to the 300 mm L lens. A supurb lens. If you want to see comparison shots, just search through the lens forum at the site referenced. There are always people asking the exact same question.

You might also be able to find a deal on the 400 5.6L lens used right now, check out those Canon for sale forums. Rumours are a new 400mm L should be coming out in the fall because the current lens is a pretty old design.

 

For tripods, be sure to read this article. I bought a Gitzo CF to replace my Al Bogen and I've been disapointed with it; the leg locks have come undone and just spin on the legs. Went back to Bogen for a CF monopod (RRS style) and love it. I also really like the Acratech Ultimate Ballhead on the tripod and anything from Really Right Stuff.

Get as fast of a telephoto lens as you can afford to help with the auto-focus while at your daughter's soccer games. If you can, take your camera into the local camera store and try different zoom lenses on it to judge how well and fast they can focus for you. It will make a big difference in whether or not you can get the photo you're after at the soccer game.

 

You dudes have some nice stuff! I think I've got a friend here that has one of the Canon 75-300 USM IS lenses that I might borrow to play around with. Seeing that they are about the same price would I be better off forgoing some of the zoom for the 70-200 f/4.0L USM lens?

 

I've got a friend that's got the L series 300 2.8 Now that thing is a hoss, but it's amazing. Not cheap, though.

 

I had that choice. No contest. 70-200 costs twice as much but probably one of the best L lens Canon sells. The pictures are in the glass. IMO, invest in the glass and it will be fine for years, long after the XTI is long obsolete

 

Amen.

 

If it's all about the lenses, why would the XTI ever become "obsolete"? Most will probably be replaced once they break out of warranty..

I use the 70-300mm USM (non-IS) with my XTI / 35mm at a lot of autocrosses and it's a steller combination. Even without the image stabilization I can get clear, crisp shots at 100 iso at full zoom... handheld. (Seems like all the events are hot, sunny days!)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/redskunk/879405510/
Like that one review linked to said, the autofocus can be slow / hard occasionally at the farther ends of the zoom. But photo quality seems great imho. For the price it was a steal, I know everyone here is talking in a whole 'nother price range, but the only dif. between the non-IS and the IS is.... the IS, correct-o?

 

Forgive me, I'm not sure I'm following your logic here.

Good glass is good glass (the notable exception to this rule, IMO, is Nikon's DX lenses, which in and of themselves are fantastic - I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX - but what happens if Nikon ever decides to go with full-frame sensors?). Good glass will always be that. The only changes I can imagine would be updates to VR (or IS).

Digital bodies will always be outdone every couple of years or so - better sensors, faster, more fps, WiFi, you name it. The Xti will become obsolete sooner rather than later. I'll tell you one thing - on the surface, my old D70 is not much different than my D200 (both based on the F/N80 body), but the color rendition is far superior with the D200 vs the D70 (and the D80, honestly). D70 can never get the McLaren Orange right, such as in that previous pic I posted. Forget about greens on the D70 - not even close. The D2x is better still vs the D200, even though it's an older body. The one thing that hasn't changed is my glass - the limiting factor will almost always be the body if you've got good lenses.

Is that what you're getting at?

 

IMO, this analysis is correct. For example, the Canon L 400 5.6 is 14 years old without a change, yet still is a supurb lens. Meanwhile, in 14 years, the XTi will long be in the trash.

As the technology changes and more pixels are jammed into the sensor size, the limiting factor is the resolving power of the lens. There is no way to get around it ... like most things in life, you get what you pay for

 

Had the Canon 400 L sold it and got the 100 - 400 L, a much more useful lens.

 

On a similar note, to this day, my favorite lenses are the old Mamiya manual-focus 50mm and 75mm lenses for my M6 rangefinder (equal to about 28mm and 42mm in 35mm-speak). Although impractical for most of my work, the quality is astounding.

True that!! I occasionally (less and less these days) get drum scans of film shot on the Mamiya that render files in the neighborhood of 60 megapixels. Shots of the same subject on a 12mp D2X are close (as expected considering the resolving power of a digital pixel), but still noticeably better on the MF. But when the days of DSLRs with 20mp arrive, I think we'll see real quick the value of good glass vs mediocre glass.

 

Nobody would argue against needing a good lens. I'm not really arguing with anyone. Just balking at the obsolete bit. Cameras in digital photography are more important because of the sensors and everything, but I think that importance is fading as the technology matures. Do you think we'll see the same level of improvement in the next ten years as in the past ten? I don't. We're getting to the point where a camera is a camera is a camera. A la with 35mm, where a 20-year-old SLR does just as good as a brand new one.

And I don't want a camera that'll also make phone calls and allow me to surf the internet. Might just be me tho, given current trends.

 

I do. And I think those improvevments will have nothing to do with bells and whistles such as phonecalls and internet surfing. What I meant by WiFi in the previous post had nothing to do with that. It meant, among other things, the ability to file-transfer wirelessly in mid-shoot, as you can do to a degree now. I'm talking about imaging, workflow and ergonomic improvements.

 

K.

 

?

What, you think technological development/improvement is just gonna stop? I suppose we should call Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Leica, 'blad and the others and suggest they just hang it up now.

 

A little bit of my opinion,

75-300 really won't do much for soccer games or anything that moves. Here is why:
*The lens needs a lot of light,
*it's probably not the fastest focus lens for action/sport either. See, not many people metioned the focus speed here. It is very important as MOE4me said.
*For action photography, shutter speed is much more important than IS. If your lens won't give you say 1/500, your subjuct will be blurry anyways.
*A tripod/monopod won't help much either, your lens will extend out pretty long and it'll introduce a lot of movements.

The bottom line: LIGHT, a lot of LIGHT!
If the soccer games are always under bright day light, you'll be fine with light, but might fighting with focus speed of 70-300+xti combo. See both MOE4me and RedSkunk all metioned a lot of light! If soccer game is in dome or at night, just leave your camera at home and enjoy the game.

My suggestion: Canon 70-200 F4 L NONE-IS + aftermarket 1.4 converter. Why?
The F4 does have very good color and image quality, focusing speed is very fast. F4 usually is shallow enough to give a good blurry background.
Add a 1.4 converter won't lose too much light, nor image quality, and give you plenty of reach.
It's probably one of the best lens combo on money vs. performance scale.

In the long reach range, I have 70-200 F4 L / 100-400 IS L / 50-500 (bigma). Every one of them stands out on their own way. I think I grab 100-400L more often in now days, I am just too lazy I guess.
xTi is a very capable camera! Forget about new camera every 2 years, they won't make yours a less camera, right? Use and Learn from it! I still use my 10D a lot. It still products a lot of WOW pictures, even there are 20D, 30D, and probably 120.99D next year.
However, for wild-life/action/sport, My 1dmkii-n is my hero, won't trade it for anything else. D2X doesn't even come close...
Ok, all nikon fans can throw rocks at me now

 

I found a friend that has the 75-300 USM maybe the IS version. She'll let me borrow it to play with for a bit. I'm tending to agree with YY_MINI. I'm considering the 70-200 F4 L lens and the 1.4x...however that will have to wait a while. The used lenses are going for near new prices on Ebay.

On the Tripod side...I broke down and picked up a DynaTran ATH-A03 Telos™ Series Ball Head and their Carbon Fiber AT-A105T enDurance™ Series Tripod Legs. I've got like $180 in them including shipping. I'm not expecting Gitzo quality, but hoping they fit the bill for a while.

I'll post back after I've had a chance to play with them.

 

Yup, I mentioned it as it's the most important thing for sports photography.

*cough*BS*cough*
Yes, more light into lens is better, agreed, but >=1/500 second speed requirement is crazy unless you like completely frozen static subjects. Last time I checked, soccer players aren't running around at 250mph. Using a monopod, slower shutter speeds, and panning will yield much nicer photos IMHO with some motion blur that highlights the action. Continuous auto focus on a player's eyes! It takes practice, but at least with digital you can waste as many electrons as you wish to learn. Also there's that little adjustment called ISO that introduces some noise depending on the camera model, but gets you extra stops of light sensitivity during a late afternoon/evening game. I'm surprised you didn't mention this as I thought Canons were so vastly superior in the high ISO arena.

 

They are totally different lens for different purposes. 400 5.6L is entry level into birding. Meant for tracking birds in flight, fast focus. Zoom might be more practical. However, both are rumoured to being replace in the fall. If you look at the comparison shots on the Canon forums, no contest that the 400 is sharper.

Actually, that is where its going. The new Canon pro cameras already have wifi. If your shooting pro sports, for example, time is the enemy. Who wants to use a card. Its much easier to just xmit the data direct to a server and the pictures can be online in seconds. I would expect this technology to migrate downward over the years to the prosumer models.

True, and thats why I think the pros go for the 2.8 versus the 4.0

I would suggest you read the reviews on the lens review websites. Since that lens has been replaced, I think twice now, you may not find many flattering reviews. That is putting it kindly. The 70-300 gets better reviews, particularly for resolution.

Best of luck!