I have recieved good advice on my previous questions and what I need to know now prior to investment is will I see a difference between my current line-up; Sigma 28-105 4.x -5.6 - and Canon 75-300 USM-4-5.6 on normal size 4 x 6 and 8 x 11 prints, compared to the following;

Canon 70-200 f2.8 or 80-200 2.8, Canon 300 f4 and maybe primes Canon 200 f2.8 and a Canon 50 or 85 f1.8 or 2.8

As I am a begineer can you explain the differences if any I will notice imediately on small prints? I know I am investing a great amount compared to where I am.

I generally take family Photos, night and days, and plan on taking some High School sports this year, mostly out doors abd some indoors, please be as elementary as possible in explanations due to my inexperience.

-- (rh24566ah@peoplepc.com), February 03, 2002

Answers

All of these proposed lens purchases are sharper than what you are using now. You should be able to easily see the sharpness difference in 8 x 11 inch prints, but maybe not the 4 x 6 prints unless you look real close.

Do the prints you get now look less sharp than they need to be? If not, why upgrade?

Another thing about these lenses is that they have larger apertures to let more light in. This will allow you to use a faster shutter speed and/or slower and sharper film. For sports in less than ideal lighting this will be very good.

They also all focus faster than what you have now. Another benefit for sports pictures.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), February 04, 2002.

The other thing that should be immediately apparent, even on a 6x4 print is that these lenses offer much greater levels of contrast than you present zooms.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), February 04, 2002.

On the long end (200mm - 300mm), the difference would be very noticable, as would the improvement at 85mm.

While the Canon 50mm is very good, and will substantially outperform your zoom at wide apetures, a consumer grade zoom, in the middle of its zoom range, stopped down (f8 / f11), will generally perform quite well.

Obviously, high speed, high performance glass comes at a price, in terms of convenience (50mm and 85mm vs 28-105 zoom), or cost/weight for pro zooms and long prime lenses. The 70-200 2.8 and 300mm f4, in aggregate weigh about 6 pounds, compared with your 1 pound 75-300 zoom

-- Kenneth Katz (socks@bestweb.net), February 04, 2002.

I would have a hard time justifying buying either of the zooms and the 200/2.8 or 85/1.8 because of the duplication of focal lengths, but a 70-200/2.8 and 50/1.4 would be a really nice combination.

Perhaps the most noticable difference with the lenses you mention, is the ability to use a large aperture, and put the background (and foreground) out of focus compared to the subject. This may be a somewhat subtle effect, but I think most people would recognize a picture taken this way (rather than everything in focus) as "professional", even if they don't know why.

-- Geoff Doane (geoff_doane@cbc.ca), February 04, 2002.

You will see a difference. Another thing you will see is the increased flexibility you have with f/1.8, f/2.8 and (for the 300mm) f/4 apertures. You will be able to see this difference through the lens.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), February 04, 2002.