Rumors > Lenses

Purchasing a 70-200 F4 L (is)advice

(1/3) > >>

Lloyd50:
Hello,
Im new here and just purchased a canon 7d that i love, i am now looking for a decent zoom lens with image stabilization technology. I made the mistake of purchasing a 70-200 f4 L non IS which is still a great lens that i just sold and now im contemplating buying the 70-200 f4 is version (is) for a walk around zoom lens, i am also looking at the 70-300 (is) lens as well.
all of your input will be greatly appreciated, thanks!

HughHowey:
I'm just about to pull the trigger on the 70-300, but I've been considering the same two lenses you're looking at. For me, I want the extra 100mm, especially since I plan on picking up a 5D3 when it comes out. The lens has great reviews, is newer, has awesome IS, and with either one, I'd be planning on shooting in decent light (wildlife and outdoor sports).

Just my thoughts...

ronderick:
I think both are great lens, but I personally prefer the 24-105 f/4L to be my walk-around lens.

Between the 2, I think the 70-200 has the edge in speed, while the 70-300 has the advantage in reach (I would assume that the 70-300 is probably more portable than the 70-200, though I may be wrong). However, you can also add an extender to the 70-200, but not the 70-300.

Lloyd50:
I think i'll be glad i bought the 70-200 in the long run. i purchased the 70-200 non is, loved the clarity but didn't like the blurry shot i got when shooting free handed at 200mm. i found the 70-200 f4 is version for 980.00 on craigslist and i think i'm going to buy it. one day i hope to be able to afford the 70-200 f2.8 is.

Flake:
Apart from the snob value of a big white lens there's the cost & the weight & the high profile.  If you want a lens which performs just as well but costs a fraction of the price then consider the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM.  Despite what others might tell you the L version has not been universally well reviewed - check Photozones findings.

If you have an amount of money burning a hole in your pocket, then consider the Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 OS yes it's heavy & has a massive front element, but images are pin sharp and it allows in four times as much light as the f5.6 lens.  It'll take teleconverters, and still stay commercially sharp.  As a sports & wildlife lens it's fantastic, as a walkaround it's not really suitable.

Sigmas 100 - 300mm f/4 is also a very sharp lens - still fast at 300mm but a lot lighter than the f/2.8 and quite a lot cheaper than the Canon - no IS though.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version