bah, another lense question

DanielB

as you all know i've been struggling over my decision for a zoom lense for quite some time.

i've decided that if i go with a 70-200 it would be the Canon f/4

but, i've noticed that many of the subjects i've been wanting to shoot are too far away, thus, i need a longer zoom. so i'm thinking, should i pick up the Canon 70-300 IS instead, for the same price:dunno or should i get the 70-200 and just slap a 1.4x on it?

thanks for your input:thumb

-daniel-

P.S- i want this kit i'm working up, to last for a long good while.:wink

Red Bull

Well I recieved my 70-200 f4 this morning. I wasn't able to use it since it's a Christmas present, but I got to take it out of the box and make sure it was all right. It sure felt solid, and I can't wait to use it. Unfortunately it is wrapped up and sitting under the Christmas tree just waiting to be opened.

I would say go with the 70-200. I would also say to hold off until you really see exactly how much reach it gives you. Remember, that on your 1.6 crop camera, it will be a 112-320mm lens.

Also, from what I've read, the 70-200 has much faster autofocus speed. It also doesn't extend when zooming. (Which is a big plus for me)

Steve Cavigliano

Daniel,
Just my opinion, but I'd opt for the L 70-200mm. If you need a bit more reach, I think it will work better with a TC than the 70-300mm. Plus, it is an "L" lens

Before you invest to heavily, you may want to be sure what sort of tele/tele zoom you need. while 200mms with a 1.4X TC will get you an FOV of almost 450mms, it still may be too short for what you're hoping to shoot. If you need lots of reach, you may be better served with a longer zoom or prime

I'm not trying to talk you in or out of anything. I just know how badly it sux to not have enough reach for what you want to shoot

Steve

Chase

I would go for the sigma 100-300 f4 HSM.

Simply awesome lens....plus you can always put a 1.4 TC on that for a 140-420 f5.6 zoom.

Tack sharp and fast focusing lens.

Wade D

probably a tc on the 70-200 would be sharper than the 70-300

erich6

I don't have experience with the 70-200 f/4L but I know many people have found it to be a great value for the buck. However, it is a big white bulky lens. The 70-300 gives you a bit more reach and has a more discrete black finish. It's a solid build and has a great IS feature. I'm pretty happy with mine.

Like others said here though it depends on what type of shooting you're going to be doing. If it's sports and mostly daylight then the 70-200 is probably a better way to go. For indoor shots, portraits, etc. I think the 70-300 may give you some advantage.

Erich

DavidTO

DanielB wrote:

P.S- i want this kit i'm working up, to last for a long good while.

Daniel, the good thing about lenses is that they really hold their value. You can find a good, used 70-200f4L for around $500. You could use it for a year and sell it for the same price. I bought mine a year and a half ago for that amount, and I'm sure I could get it now for the same lens. So I wouldn't worry about it lasting long, just buy smart and take care of your equipment, save the box and everything that comes with it. Just ask Andy, he knows all about trading and selling!

Mike Lane

That Sigma 50-500 is holding up fairly well for me (that's 80 to 800 on my 20D mind you!). Although it's f/4-6.3 so it's not all that fast. But really, how could I expect to handhold an 800mm lens anyhow?

*cough* lens *cough*

Red Bull

I personally love the white finish. There's just something about that white (lens) on black (body) that really appeals to me. I wouldn't worry about it attracting attention unless you will be doing candid shooting.

Daniel, when I use mine once I open it on christmas, I'll give you some photos and a detailed review.

DanielB

Red Bull wrote:

I personally love the white finish. There's just something about that white (lens) on black (body) that really appeals to me. I wouldn't worry about it attracting attention unless you will be doing candid shooting.

Daniel, when I use mine once I open it on christmas, I'll give you some photos and a detailed review.

awesome thanks.

plus. i too am a "white finish" lover. for my lenses. i like the attention. and when i bring it out in front of the guys i'm shooting down at the skatepark. they put on a pretty decent little show for me. . i've convinced them i send the pictures in to a magazing.

Thusie

Daniel,

I'm very new to the DSLR world and have a long way to go before I can even be concidered capable with one, but I love my 70-200 f4. It also, for me, has become the easiest for me to hold steady, a real probelm I have. It is more versital than I thought and is just flat out fun to use. I shoot 90% outside and that lens is on the camera 70% of the time.

Is it long enough? Depends, there are times I REALLY want/need more reach so I just bought the 1.4TC . The TC fits into the game plan right now since I need to sell a couple lenses and get Don the 17-85 IS. Money is such a bother:-)

Ok here is an inside shot I just took, remember this is 'me' and I'm much worse inside than outside. My house is very old and lighting ,in many rooms, is a bit on the gloomy side. HAH! never even noticed the cobwebs! Except for correcting WB and a bit og highligh and shadows here tis the shot.
f4.5, ISO 400, 172mm 1/60 handheld no proping at all. Take it for what it is worth, but is skilled hands?? FYI no I do NOT buy sq stuff this was a gift:D

JimM

Someone help me remember the ratio on the 10D? On my 20D I think 200mm is a pretty good distance. You can always add the TC. For shooting at the skate park, I don't think you will want anything longer than 200.

I shot a play last night with my 200mm 2.8 prime and I could not get the entire choir in the frame (I was too close, being halfway up the auditorium). Now that 70-200 would have worked beautifully (and I think I could have made the f/4 work just fine, as I was using a monopod).

My vote is go for the 70-200. This seems to be the most popular lens for most photographers. If you need more reach later, get a nice big prime. I want the 70-200mm 2.8 IS and a 300 2.8 (though, might settle for 4).

I definately agree with the reselling value of the lenses and I plan on buying most of my next ones used. When I am ready to buy the 70-200 2.8 IS, I will sell my 200mm 2.8 prime for probably as much as I paid for it (maybe more).

Red Bull

DanielB wrote:

awesome thanks.

plus. i too am a "white finish" lover. for my lenses. i like the attention. and when i bring it out in front of the guys i'm shooting down at the skatepark. they put on a pretty decent little show for me. . i've convinced them i send the pictures in to a magazing.

That's funny since I've gotten similar reactions before. I was at Belmont Park, a small little section on the boardwalk with some rides, and I was taking some photos with my 20D and the 18-55 lens. An employee came up and asked me if I had permission to take photos. (Like I were shooting for a magazine or something!) And that was with a small black lens! THe park is a public place (you can just walk right in, it's pay-per-ride.)

leebase

Two different classes of lens. I'd go with the 70-200 f/4 for the quality. You can use an extender -- and you can crop. Frankly, you need longer than 300 for birding as well....for the small birds anyway.

Lee