Eveline Shih-Pitcairn
(K=4406) - Comment Date 10/11/2006
|
When you say afford, are you talking about purchasing or renting the Canon lens? Renting is very affordable, especially if you are in a large city like London. I used to have couple of Tokina and Sigma lenses (although not necessarily the specific ones you have) and ultimately sold them to other photographers. I rent prime lenses when I need them for certain applications I don't very often do (fish eye, macro, etc). If I do jobs that pay more or use those particular lens more often, then I consider purchasing.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 10/11/2006
|
Rentals are far less commonly available in Europe than they are in the US, and Canon rentals are even rarer.
The used market might be an option, but this range of primes (at least decent quality) isn't very common used either (most people tend to replace their slower ones with this kind of lens, and than keep it until it falls apart).
As to the Sigma or the Tokina, the Tokina is potentially a bit better optically but that's more than compensated for (unless you don't need fast autofocus) by the far faster AF system in the Sigma (which is equivalent to Canon's USM II or III).
Mechanically they're likely roughly similar, the choice being more one of esthetics (some people don't like the look of Sigma EX lenses).
|
|
|
|
Tom Hughes
(K=20) - Comment Date 4/2/2007
|
the tokina 300mm 2.8 is a very good lens my pal paul uses one om a nikon fit its sharp, and the minimal depth of field is lovely when shooting football.for nature id go for longer though, equivalent to 500mm in 35mm
|
|
|
|
Daniel Taylor
(K=3495) - Comment Date 4/5/2007
|
Are you sure you don't want the 300 f/4L IS? Sharp as a tack, much cheaper, still useful with the 1.4x converter, and since you're shooting digital you can easily make up for the lost stop of light with higher ISO. The only real disadvantage is the 2x converter becomes less useful. But consider that your FoV is already 480mm equiv on the digital sensor.
Just something to consider.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/5/2007
|
I seriously doubt the Canon 300 f/4 to be optically equivalent (let alone superior) to the Sigma 300 f/2.8 EX.
IS would be mostly useless as he's working with moving subjects and thus needs high shutterspeeds.
Most wildlife shooters want the longest focal length they can get, so the difference between being able to comfortably use a 2x and 1.4x TC is critical to them.
And no, just upping the EI isn't always an option. When shooting in low light you're already at a high EI and upping it even more (if your camera supports it) may well increase noise levels to unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
