Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1965 times:
Are these lenses worth the money? The 'L' glass (Thats what you pros call it, right? ) is non IS, and only goes to 200mm. But, it is 'L' glass. Many of you have said this is the best. Which of these should I go with? I am hoping Tony Z can sell me his Sigma 170-500mm for a decent price, so going with the 200mm lens might be better.
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1952 times:
Chad--this was in the other thread....you might be well off with that L lens and a 2x converter..
"Andy,
good move. The 10D is a good unit for the money no question about it. I don't recommend the 100-400, its too slow in my opinion- better with the 70-200 F2.8 IS and 1.4X and 2.0X converters, this way you have the 70-200 which is much more versatile than the restrictive 100-400 and F2.8 with IS is the best thing modern photography has to offer. I also have the 16-35 F2.8 which im happy with, in fact i've never been unhappy with any L lens i've owned."
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1946 times:
Thanks Tony,
trying to get all the info I can before Friday. Im going in search of my camera... I will SUCCEED!
Hey, does it matter that max app. is f/4.0 and that its not IS?
Also found a BIG Sigma 170-500mm for $629.00
If I go that route, I will have to buy you lunch lol.. I will need the "Fishing Weight" to fill the gap temprorarily until I can get the 70-200mm.
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1918 times:
Please note that Canon 70-200mm f/4.0L USM EF + 2x will NOT give AF on D30/D60/10D/300D
Well, that changes everything.. That is just with the converter, though, correct?
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1906 times:
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1895 times:
The 70-200 f4 is a real class act - quality is in a different league to the others you've mentioned. Even with the 1.4 attached, it will outperform the 75-300.
What you have to decide is whether you want the best possible quality or trade this off against price/focal length.
I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. If your budget is tight and you really need 300mm plus right now, then the 70-200 won't do.
If 200mm is enough, or you can stretch your budget to the 1.4 convertor, then the 70-200 is an excellent investment for the future - it will not let you down and will outlast a whole series of bodies. I am not aware of any other zoom lens sharper than this one.
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1859 times:
Thanks Colin,
Is this the same lens you use with the 2.0x converter?
I am ordering the 70-200mm Lens above. Now, will it be a pain operating this lens with the 2.0x converter (due to the fact I lose the auto focus capabilities with the 2.0x converter).
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1835 times:
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 57 Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1836 times:
That shot of colin is with the 70-200 2.8 IS.
I advise you to go with the 70-200. Having L glass is a good feeling, you have the best possible sharpness and its nice to have a white lens on your camera
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
Thanks Wietse,
I am going to order it today or tomorrow. I probably will not get a converter, but, will buy the Sigma 50-500mm around March time frame. I have read great things about that lens. Most places have it for around $950.00. Thats a steal, because most of these places show it normally priced at $1900.00!
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
If you want to put a 2x on a 70-200 lens, you might want to consider the f2.8 version of the 70-200 L lens. you will still have decent light, and I think your autofocus might still work (someone else might correct me on that)
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 49 Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1783 times:
this is bouncing around in quite a few threads at the moment, but what the heck...
as is already stated, the 70-200 is the favorable lens. (here comes my obsession with IS) for $50 more, one can go with the L glass, and not the 75-300, but at a cost of losing the IS feature and considerable focal length.
although with the 1.4x TC, the AF apparently isn't lost, quality is put at risk, i would think. and you still don't have IS. so what's the big huge difference between a quality-depreciated 70-200 non-IS, and a 75-300 IS? i'm also interested in this, and still tyring to sort things out.
Fireguy274 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 299 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1779 times:
I dont think you can even compare the 70-200mm to the 75-300. They are in a different league!
Qantas005 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1767 times:
*note*
that if you buy the sigma 170-500 you will need to get it rechipped! if your using a canon you will have to send the lens to sigma for this to be carried out.
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1753 times:
I think much of it depends on when the lens was made. My 170-500 seems to work fine on both a D60 and a 10D as does a 300 prime Sigma I was given as a gift. No error messages at all. But a friend in the UK got a 300 prime as well and had to have it re chipped. (After a few calls they did it for free.)
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1708 times:
How does Sigma and Canon compare when looking at second hand prices? For example, does one generally stay higher in price than the other when it is used?
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1706 times:
Hard to say - the problem is that you tend to find used L glass only when Canon had bought out a replacement - so when the 70-200 f2.8 came out, there was a surplus of f4s on the market ... similar thing happened to the 17-35 when they brought out the 16-35. But I think on the whole L glass holds its value well - I've seen some lenses sell on E-bay for more than list price . Aside from the exceptions above, I've not seen any real bargains to be had.
Cheers,
Colin
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
25 Planedoctor: The 70-200 f4 at 200mm held more resolution than my 75-300mm did at 300mm on my D30. That is to say, standing at one point and shooting at maximum tel
26 Maiznblu_757: I am going to go ahead and buy the Cannon 70-200mm f/4L. I have read great reviews, and coupled with what most of you are saying sounds like its a goo
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, 
) is non IS, and only goes to 200mm. But, it is 'L' glass. Many of you have said this is the best. Which of these should I go with? I am hoping Tony Z can sell me his Sigma 170-500mm for a decent price, so going with the 200mm lens might be better. 
From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 61 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
