Not another lens question ;-)

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
5 answers Last reply
More about lens question
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Canon Cameras