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..
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."
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 13, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
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.
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.)
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.
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