Dilemma on telezoom

[codling]

Hi...I'm a newbie on dslr...never thought so much about lenses until i got my hands on the D5D...
now i'm at cross roads...i cant decide which zoom to get... KM 75-300 4.5-5.6 (D) or the Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro SuperII...
I know i'll definitely be getting a Tamron 90mm 2.8Di for macro/portrait purposes and hopefully a beercan 70-200f4 if it shows up...

question: which telezoom? difference is almost $100, provided Oracle still have stock for his KM 75-300...

anyone can help?

*c

[GENO]

The KM 75-300mm is a good zoom.... but the old minolta 70-210 with give very nice sharp pics. dont rush into buying, test them out for yrself first, most of us have those lenses, that take great pics but depends on how u use them..

[grado]

Have not tried the KM 75-300mm, but the Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro SuperII for my nikon mount serves me well, sharp and contrasty. Its a solid general purpose lens at a budget price.

Originally Posted by codling Hi...I'm a newbie on dslr...never thought so much about lenses until i got my hands on the D5D... now i'm at cross roads...i cant decide which zoom to get... KM 75-300 4.5-5.6 (D) or the Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro SuperII... I know i'll definitely be getting a Tamron 90mm 2.8Di for macro/portrait purposes and hopefully a beercan 70-200f4 if it shows up... question: which telezoom? difference is almost $100, provided Oracle still have stock for his KM 75-300... anyone can help? *c

[codling]

understood that its the person behind the cam...
but the lens matters a bit...?
i m ready to get the sigma...but i m just wondering if its worth the extra for it.

[grado]

AF is very slow though, haha, for the Sigma, but I guess that's normal? If you willing to sacrifice the 200-300mm range and macro, the 70-210mm f4 would be my choice if you can find a good condition one.

[codling]

thats the problem...theres noone selling it now on B&S. and i dont want to take a chance on ebay...went down to TCW the other day, wasnt open...walked around some of the shops and enquired, but none have it...
i m aware of the sigma's limitation, but so long as its sharp, i suppose i have to make do with what i can afford. if i do get the sigma, it would be for distance purposes. think the tamron would be a better choice for macro...but i can only get one lens at a time...cant afford fast tele zoom lens unless with some substantial saving...
just wondering if the picture quality and contrast similar to each other...
but i doubt it, i think the older KM 75-300 is better...?

[grado]

The Sigma I feel is sharp and contrasty enough for me... Buy it with confidence! Haha!

Originally Posted by codling thats the problem...theres noone selling it now on B&S. and i dont want to take a chance on ebay...went down to TCW the other day, wasnt open...walked around some of the shops and enquired, but none have it... i m aware of the sigma's limitation, but so long as its sharp, i suppose i have to make do with what i can afford. if i do get the sigma, it would be for distance purposes. think the tamron would be a better choice for macro...but i can only get one lens at a time...cant afford fast tele zoom lens unless with some substantial saving... just wondering if the picture quality and contrast similar to each other... but i doubt it, i think the older KM 75-300 is better...?

[GENO]

Originally Posted by codling understood that its the person behind the cam... but the lens matters a bit...? i m ready to get the sigma...but i m just wondering if its worth the extra for it.

Last time i will say its the person behind the camera..but now, there is no way a F5.6 lens can match up with a f2.8.....plastic VS glass....

[codling]

i mean, i still refuse to believe in getting G lens just for good pics, i suppose its how the person goes round to making full use of his equipment. but why settle for lens that it is apparently (or rather, acclaimed to be) not as good as another for the same price range?
agreed that 2.8 fast lens does aid in some ways...

[Agetan]

if you need one now, just get the cheapest one that is available.

All lenses have limitation.

I don't think KM 75-300 is not that bad, so long if you can stop down 1 stop at least.

Even G lenses have limitation... (PRICE and Weight )

Regards,

Hart

[leeshock]

Originally Posted by codling Hi...I'm a newbie on dslr...never thought so much about lenses until i got my hands on the D5D... now i'm at cross roads...i cant decide which zoom to get... KM 75-300 4.5-5.6 (D) or the Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro SuperII... I know i'll definitely be getting a Tamron 90mm 2.8Di for macro/portrait purposes and hopefully a beercan 70-200f4 if it shows up... question: which telezoom? difference is almost $100, provided Oracle still have stock for his KM 75-300... anyone can help? *c

Ronang is selling his Tamron 90mm here
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=176929

[sulhan]

Hiee...

Here are some inputs. I have owned/used the following:
1) Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super I & II (Owned Both Versions b4)
Cheap and good light travel lens.APO glass has its good use where you use lots of the 300mm range with minimal chromatic aberration espcially on highlights (can easily be seen on enlarged cropped pics) 0 if you dont really print big....then dont bother.
THis lens give a nice warm image and better to use without filter if you want to take sunrise/sunsets sun-ball tyope of shoots.

2) Minolta 75-300 - All non APO
There are four versions to this -
a)oldest metal body + focus limit switch
b)Plastic body with focus hold button (currently own this one)
c)plastic body with widened focus ring area (owned this b4)*
d)plastic body with widened focus ring area + D*
*(Seem to be using hybrid optics with plastic elements in it...hence lighter overall)
From my experience now with the "b" version, its great a very neutral color -slightly cooler then Sigma one. Handy range. SLight chromatic aberration for highlights at 300mm. Not that concern if not enlarge too big. Good also for macro - need tripod.

Point to note about these 70/75~300 f5.6 type of lens. They are not fast at f5.6 in term of its light gathering power. Hence its use in low light may restrict to static subjects if want to achieve maximum sharpness and tripod to be used most of the time if possible when light is low.

I have came across many ppl get soft images and blame the quality of these lens. Looks like user problem...not lens problem. These lens are rated af f5.6 and optimised ot perfrom at this stop at maximum aperture @300mm to give sharp center~corner.

Simply to say......they are both good lens to have. And really perform very well to experienced hands of the photographer. If can get it cheap ....go for it...

[codling]

Thanks for the input guys...
if the KM is of hybrid plastic/glass thingy...how does this affect pic quality?
ain't it weird...thought should be glass...?

[tankm]

Originally Posted by codling if the KM is of hybrid plastic/glass thingy...how does this affect pic quality? ain't it weird...thought should be glass...?

Problem is, manufacturer do not state when there is a plastic lens in it. Sometime don;t even know there is a plastic lens in it until someone mention it.

[Drudkh]

plastic is not glass, glass is not plastic. both may look the same but they are of different material and have different properties, reactions, etc... plastic may be much more lighter in weight than glass as well as lower cost, but the output quality from glass is still way much better than plastic.

[codling]

exactly my point. if the 75-300 is using plastic lens (?!), wouldnt it be "crippled" from the start? why would they use plastic for optics if knowing that glass is much better but heavier?

[Drudkh]

the answer is simple, just like why is there a 7D and a 5D?

[sulhan]

Originally Posted by codling exactly my point. if the 75-300 is using plastic lens (?!), wouldnt it be "crippled" from the start? why would they use plastic for optics if knowing that glass is much better but heavier?

Hi Codling...

Its a matter of $$ at the end of the day....the big boss needs money to buy extra golf balls...that he lost in the pond.

Glass lens are little costlier to be made. Glass lens is also heavier in general.
Consumer grade stuff are normally targeted for consumers who may not need that resolution (I was told by some lens makers that all glass lens have generally better performance - i'm no experts to verify them to real depth ).

Its all about weight and portability......and of course profit lah..(cost of 75-300 may drop but the weight of it drops faster....you know some material has change)
- Holiday makers are more than real prophotographers - these ppl buy cameras in volumes
- Women ergonimics (in general) is smaller than guys ans they prefer smaller cameras...that are naturally expected to be lighter too...
- Travelling light is normally preferred.
- If you have a light camera....with a heany lens(all glass) may not be favorable by some...
hence matching light kit lens...

Usually the optics may not be fully plastic....its usually hybrid with some plastics and some glass....

Final performance either plastics or glass again have variation depend on materials and chemistry. At times, some materials may degrade through time or discolor at times...even if its glasss with special concoction.

FYI...Like My super Takumar Pentax HMC lens 50mm. The glass turns yellow due to ageing of additves in the glass itself...

[jhansolo]

Originally Posted by Drudkh plastic is not glass, glass is not plastic. both may look the same but they are of different material and have different properties, reactions, etc... plastic may be much more lighter in weight than glass as well as lower cost, but the output quality from glass is still way much better than plastic.

plastic would be a lot bulkier as in thicker. Is it for real that the 75-300 kit is using plastic lens in it? It feels a lot more in weight.

[codling]

ok decided on 100-200 f4.5
i know i know...not in my original list...at least its not plastic