Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Through-the-Lens Club' started by JellyBelly, Oct 22, 2006.
At just over $800 is it worth it as a "do nearly everything" lens?
"everything" lens? Nope.
70 is too long on the short end. (You are using an XTi? Crop factor is what? 1.6x on it? Effectively, that is well over 100 on the short end.)
200 isn't long enough on the long end for a lot of things.
f2.8 isn't fast enough for lowlight in some conditions (note: I hate flash).
Too big for casual use without a tripod.
That said, I would like to have it but not as a "walkaround" lens.
Here is some reading on it from POTN. Those guys seem happy with the lens. Just note the conditions they are shooting in compared to your conditions.
Just because a lens is GREAT for Joe does not mean that it will be perfect for Bob too
Take a serious, long, hard look at the 70-300 IS USM. It has been descirbed as a "hidden L" lens. I think it is going to be my next. The 70-300 isn't as fast as the 2.8 but I think the IS will help make up for it a little. At $560 I think it's a steal. Not quite the build quality of the 70-200 F4 L, but from the reviews I have seen the pics are as good or better than the L, plus you get IS.
too vague. you need to tell us what your main subjects are.
I have a nikon 80-200 2.8 that is my most used lens. I shoot alot of kids sports, motor sports, animals. things that are moving fast enough that the extra speed of 2.8 makes the difference of getting a sharp or blurry pic. IS systems will help with camera shake, but it won't slow down fast moving subjects.
yes, it is a little heavy. I use it on a monopod with a ball-head.
don't you love those people that ask for advice, and then don't acknowledge those who replied to their original request?
He did the same thing before he bought the body
Maybe he's a troll lol.
I completely agree. I use my 80-200 2.8 for most things. In my experience it's been one of the sharpest lenses i've owned. It's heavier than the 70-300 because it has bigger glass elements and more metal construction.
Get what you can afford, but there is a reason most of the pros still use the 2.8 series lenses almost exclusively.
You noink users gotta remember we canonites don't really know much about y'alls lenses or who uses what.
Yeah, I'll be doing that stuff....
Not a lot of "art" shots, like one solitary leaf or architecture at strange angles. I just want to make recordings of everyday life, but with more color and clarity than one could do with a point and shoot.
I'm not sure what camera you are using but you might try to get a few prime lenses over one giant zoom. For $800, depending on the quality of the lens you want, you should be able to spread that out over a couple of options. Also, what lenses do you already have?
I have a Canon XTi with the el-cheapo kit lens (18-55) that came as an option.
Generally, if you were to get all prime lenses you'll go for a 28mm, 50mm, 105 or 135 and a telephoto.
Since you've got the 18-55 it came with you might want to get the 100ish mm lens and something longer, like 200+. As time and finances permit you could get better wide angle lenses. Do your subjects usually need long lenses? Also, you could probably sell your zoom on Ebay to get a couple+ hundred towards its replacements.
I've done a little research on the Canon stuff - their "L" series lenses are the higher quality ones. If you plan on upgrading your camera over the years the increasing quality of photo sensors will begin showing more and more lens flaws. Depending on your intended use, it may benefit you to buy the better glass. Although at $1700 for their 50mm 1.2 I'll probably stick to its $80 variant.
My Nifty Fifty is my favorite lens. It is tack sharp.
It is an all plastic mount which is the biggest criticism but if you are cafeful with it, you won't have any problems with it breaking/wearing out.