User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/22/2008 12:06:51 PM EDT
Hey guys, I'm looking to purchase a new telephoto lens for myself for christmas. I've narrowed it down to two but am having trouble deciding. So here they are.
My current body is a XSi and my only lenes right not are the 17-40mm f/4L USM and the 100mm f/2.8 macro USM Ive narrowed it down to these two: EF 70-200mm f/4L USM 
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM 
I dont have any specific subject matter I photograph. I would just like it to supplement my current lens collection. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2008 2:16:26 PM EDT
[#1]
IMHO. You can never go wrong with the "L" series.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2008 2:50:18 PM EDT
[#2]
I love my 70-200.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2008 4:10:40 PM EDT
[#3]
My 70-200 F/4L gets the most use out of any of my lenses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2008 4:14:36 PM EDT
[#4]
you're asking arfcom?
get both! But, seriously, if you have the coin, get the L |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2008 4:32:58 PM EDT
[#5]
Absolutely go for the L.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2008 8:00:26 PM EDT
[#6]
Dude, you can get the 70-200 f/2.8 for less than $100 more than the f/4.
F/4 $949.95 at Amazon 2.8 for $1017 at Amazon Seriously, if you're willing to spend a grand for a lens then spend a grand +$15 for the better lens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2008 8:06:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Stay the hell away from the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.
Get the 70 - 200 2.8 L lens...trust me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2008 8:07:27 PM EDT
[#8]
O course the 2.8 is always going to be the best and shrpest lens. Really though you shoudl get whatever lens suits your needs the best.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2008 8:18:51 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Dude, you can get the 70-200 f/2.8 for less than $100 more than the f/4. F/4 $949.95 at Amazon 2.8 for $1017 at Amazon Seriously, if you're willing to spend a grand for a lens then spend a grand +$15 for the better lens. 1. You're looking at the wrong lens. There are 4 variations of 70-200: - the f/4 - the f/4 with image stabilizer which is linked to above. - the 2.8 which you also linked to above - the 2.8 with image stabilizer The basic f/4 costs less than $600 and is only a little more expensive than the 70-300IS that the OP asked about. The f/4 with an image stabilizer and the basic f/2.8 which are the two lenses you linked to and which cost about $1000. Then there is the f/2.8 with image stabilzer which goes for about $1600. 2. "Better" is a matter of opinion. While the 2.8 is certainly a faster lens, the 70-200 f/4 is no slouch and beats it pretty much every otjher category. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2008 8:49:32 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Dude, you can get the 70-200 f/2.8 for less than $100 more than the f/4. F/4 $949.95 at Amazon 2.8 for $1017 at Amazon Seriously, if you're willing to spend a grand for a lens then spend a grand +$15 for the better lens. ++++ listen to the guy |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2008 9:57:48 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: What he said. I owned the 70-300 when I started out and it was a "good" lens. However it is not an L lens.Stay the hell away from the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Get the 70 - 200 2.8 L lens...trust me. The 70-200 f/4 will be a good choice for starting out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2008 9:58:48 AM EDT
[#12]
I vote for 70-200L.
If you're patient, you might save up a bit and get the IS or 2.8 or better yet, the 2.8IS. But between the two, I'd go for the 70-200 for most situations... however, if you'll be shooting a lot of low light settings, the IS may enable you to get shots you couldn't otherwise get... such as shooting handheld zoomed in at 1/50 second when your ISO and aperture are already maxed out. Other than a few very specific scenarios involving required IS and/or 201-300mm, the 70-200 should give you better results. If I were going to keep ONE zoom lens, the 70-200 (2.8 IS) would be the one I would keep. Adding prime lenses into the mix, however... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2008 11:16:14 PM EDT
[#13]
The Canon 55-250 IS is a good alternative.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2008 11:55:46 PM EDT
[#14]
I appreciate the input. 70-200 it is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2008 4:38:48 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: I appreciate the input. 70-200 it is. You won't be disappointed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2008 7:12:09 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I appreciate the input. 70-200 it is. You won't be disappointed. Great choice! You just can't go wrong with the 70-200 in f4 or f2.8. -Mark. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2008 10:46:35 AM EDT
[#17]
I have the Canon EF 200mm 2.8 L II. Great lens, very sharp images not as much glass to image through like the zoom lenses. I hardly ever use it though, I'd prefer a good 90mm macro lens.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2008 4:11:39 PM EDT
[#18]
I really like my 70-300 IS USM, but if you have the money for L glass, do it. I dont have the funds and got the 70-300 new for over half off normal prices during a closeout sale so thats what I ended up with.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
