1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

is this type of lens any good?

Discussion in 'Reality Check' started by A~Photography, Jan 26, 2009.

  1. A~Photography

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,929
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
  2. Worsl

    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Halifax/Truro, N.S
    I have it and it isn't anything special but good enough for me just learning. Autofocus won't really happen in the low light and max f/4 stinks but to get f/2.8 is going to cost 4x as much.

    Edit: Mine is actually f/4 - 5.6 lll USM
    I don't know the difference.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2009
  3. nb132

    Drunk Batman hates you

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    28,903
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Tha 36 Chambers
    I guess my answers on this weren't accurate the first few times. lol
     
  4. Jenn

    Left Shark

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    18,034
    Likes Received:
    274
    Location:
    Middle Sackville, NS
    One thing I don't like about that lens is it's a non-image stabilizer lens. I have a 55-250mm IS and I like it. On the long end of the 75-300 you may have to use a slightly faster shutter speed to compensate for the camera shake in your hand if you're not using a tripod (due to the zoom). The Image Stabilization in mine compensates for this to a degree.
     
  5. Julie

    New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North East Point, NS
    It's ok for doing telephoto landscape with camera on tripod. Sports or anything else, nope. I've got it and I don't care for it.
     
  6. Jenn

    Left Shark

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    18,034
    Likes Received:
    274
    Location:
    Middle Sackville, NS
  7. lost

    seasoned n00b

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Beaver Bank
    Personally, I'd go for the 55-250 IS lens over that one. The IS is pretty invaluable for those long reach lenses (IMHO). I hummed and hawed over the 70-200 IS or not and went with the IS one. No regrets at all, the IS is amazingly helpful when you are zoomed in. Plus the 55-250 has gotten many positive reviews from people. (the 70-300 IS is spoken of pretty well too, but that one is considerably more expensive.).
     
  8. A~Photography

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,929
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    I ASKED YOU THIS?? lol my mind is SHOT LATELY!!

    that other lens looks better that jenn posted not much more either! I"d even buy something used if i could find one! i just would like a little more reach! if i get into weddings (few years down the road) id liek to get something liek the 70-300 2.8
     
  9. nb132

    Drunk Batman hates you

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    28,903
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Tha 36 Chambers
    i would love a 70-300 2.8














    :hsugh:
     
  10. Julie

    New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North East Point, NS
    I would to but pretty sure that it doesn't exist
     
  11. nb132

    Drunk Batman hates you

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    28,903
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Tha 36 Chambers
    ohhh did i forget the /sarcasm
     
  12. Julie

    New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North East Point, NS
    I caught the sarcasm. :P

    I would like to try out the canon close up lens. Seriously. No sarcasm Mosher :)
     
  13. A~Photography

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,929
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Mosher Bite Me LOL:bigup::rofl:
     
  14. Marc Oliver

    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Halif**k
  15. A~Photography

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,929
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    ok i definitely wrote the wrong lens down LOL what was teh one ppl always say is the WEDDING lens?

    for now i just wanted something with a little reach!
     
  16. A~Photography

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,929
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    ok teh one i am hoping to someday have is 70-200 2.8

    hahaha too many numbers in my brain lol
     
  17. Arod

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    19,305
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    Stratford, PE
    70-200 2.8 IS is a fantastic lens. Before you ever decide to buy I would rent or test out one that belongs to someone else to see if the focal range is for you.

    I wasted so much money buying lenses and selling them a few months later because I didn't have a use for them. :(
     
  18. krystal

    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Berwick, NS
    Ditto. I love my 70-200 (granted, mine is a sigma and non-is/vr) but I don't use it nearly enough for it to have been a worthwhile purchase. I wish I'd have spent my money on a 17-55 2.8 instead.
     
  19. SheOfManyChildren

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    11,017
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Halifax
    I loved my 17-55 2.8

    I just got a 70-200 f4L and only paid $400, so I'm happy. I'll use it a lot.
     
  20. A~Photography

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,929
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    great info guys :)

    thank you!!
     
  21. Gordon S.

    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Middle Sackville, NS
    I can't live without my 70-200 f2.8. If I didn't have it I might as well sell my camera. :)
     
  22. RoryTate

    Buffer the streaming media unto me.

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    5,781
    Likes Received:
    931
    Location:
    Rigaud, QC
    If you can't afford the $2000 lens, then by all means get the one you can afford. Just be aware of what the differences are and what the limitations will be.
     

Share This Page

-->