Not another lens question ;-)

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Maybe it is It's for my Canon 300D.

I've been setting my eyes on the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L lens for a while but I
need to save up for it first. I've shot with this glass on my friend's cam
and love how it performs in low light. I guess having a extra couple stops
above 80mm definitely helps (compared to the 300D kit lens)

In the mean time, I'm wondering if you would recommend a _cheap_ telephoto
lens that I can use to work on my techniques. Maybe something under $200.

TIA,
Henry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
> Maybe it is It's for my Canon 300D.
>
> I've been setting my eyes on the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L lens for a
while but I
> need to save up for it first. I've shot with this glass on my
friend's cam
> and love how it performs in low light. I guess having a extra couple
stops
> above 80mm definitely helps (compared to the 300D kit lens)
>
> In the mean time, I'm wondering if you would recommend a _cheap_
telephoto
> lens that I can use to work on my techniques. Maybe something under
$200.

I just bought myself a telephoto and was in the same boat as you till
about three hours back.

The $209 Sigma 70-300mm APO f/4-5.6 seems to be the choice if you trust
Sigma's QC. Or the Canon 55-200mm /80-200mm (based on photodo test
results).

- Siddhartha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Confused wrote:
> I still like my EF 75-300 IS lens. It does get soft at 300mm
> and needs more light, but I use the zoom end for full framed
> viewfinder-cropped face shots and close birds (and other stuff) so
the
> softness that is widely complained about is not a problem for me. I
> think it's a great lens, if not the sharpest tack.

The only hitch is that the Canon 75-300mm IS USM III isn't under $200


- Siddhartha

 

[Confused]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:45:45 GMT
In message <JBUGd.21124$fE4.4282394@twister.southeast.rr.com>
Henry wrote:

> Maybe it is It's for my Canon 300D.
>
> I've been setting my eyes on the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L lens for a while but I
> need to save up for it first. I've shot with this glass on my friend's cam
> and love how it performs in low light. I guess having a extra couple stops
> above 80mm definitely helps (compared to the 300D kit lens)
> <snip>

I bought that lens for my 300D and found that hanging a large
heavy lens from a light weight plastic camera is not a good idea. The
lens mount has too much flex in it (the lens does not lock tight; the
20D is a better fit but not perfect; the 1D(s) Mark II's are a perfect
fit). And yes, it's a great lens by any standard. ;-()

I still like my EF 75-300 IS lens. It does get soft at 300mm
and needs more light, but I use the zoom end for full framed
viewfinder-cropped face shots and close birds (and other stuff) so the
softness that is widely complained about is not a problem for me. I
think it's a great lens, if not the sharpest tack.

It's not as bad a lens as others may indicate... pixel
sharpness and image quality are not exactly objective... after all,
many here don't mind the horrible 300D & 20D ISO 400+ noise because
they come from a film background. Yet they complain when a lens that
makes a better picture isn't as sharp as others.

It's like complaining about the [reported] lack of contrast at
the black end of the Epson P-2000 but no one is ranting about the
planned obsolescence of the 8 megapixel still and 640x480 video
limitations. Along similar lines, the 1D(s) Mark II's produce great
images, no one mentions the horrible user interface (I'd still have a
1Dm2 instead of a 20D and a 300D backup if I could physically use the
camera).

Jeff

 

[Confused]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 17 Jan 2005 22:06:56 -0800
In message <1106028416.326221.58050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Confused wrote:
> > I still like my EF 75-300 IS lens. It does get soft at 300mm
> > and needs more light, but I use the zoom end for full framed
> > viewfinder-cropped face shots and close birds (and other stuff) so
> the
> > softness that is widely complained about is not a problem for me. I
> > think it's a great lens, if not the sharpest tack.
>
> The only hitch is that the Canon 75-300mm IS USM III isn't under $200
>

Yeah, well, maybe Henry will try one, like it, and ask if one of the
critics will sell theirs for $199.99 (if they actually own one. ;^)

(Oh gosh, I posted a subjective opinion. Will this cause thread
drift? Regardless, Henry: The lens is worth testing.)

Jeff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I suggest that you will be $200 closer to the 70-200 F/2.8 IS if you
just continue to save and develop you photography tallent with what you
currently have. The other option I might suggest is that you are $1200
closer to a 70-200 F/4 ($600) than the 70-200 F/2.8 IS ($1600) (since
money seems to limit your opportunities.) In any event, you will be
able to ebay a 70-200 F/4 for the vast majority of its cost to you
(90%-95%) where you will not be so lucky with the lesser lenses. L
lenses hold their values well.