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:
    18,024
    Likes Received:
    259
    Location:
    Fall River, 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:
    18,024
    Likes Received:
    259
    Location:
    Fall River, 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:
    19,175
    Likes Received:
    204
    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:
    11,015
    Likes Received:
    2
    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:
    5,353
    Likes Received:
    667
    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