R
richy
Guest
Martijn, sigma make a decent 300 2.8 and 120-300 2.8, used they are bargains and offer really great quality for the price.
As for the 70-300L I am witholding judgement until I see results. With iso 1600 and 3200 being saleable settings these days I'm not worried about 5.6 so much (although not being able to use teles is a valid point). Im looking at this as a lense for when i dont want to carry the 300 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 about and be swapping lenses rather than as a direct replacement for any particular lens. I wouldnt be suprised if canon used this to delay or ditch a 100-400 upgrade. Other brands have managed to make good versions but canons was so/so. If its sharp at 300 @ 5.6 then it will probably sell. I was waiting on a 100-400 ii but this on a 7d is good enough if its sharp I dont think canon are as crazy as it may seem. Now a 70-300 2.8 IS thats razor sharp would be worth some pennies !
As for the 70-300L I am witholding judgement until I see results. With iso 1600 and 3200 being saleable settings these days I'm not worried about 5.6 so much (although not being able to use teles is a valid point). Im looking at this as a lense for when i dont want to carry the 300 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 about and be swapping lenses rather than as a direct replacement for any particular lens. I wouldnt be suprised if canon used this to delay or ditch a 100-400 upgrade. Other brands have managed to make good versions but canons was so/so. If its sharp at 300 @ 5.6 then it will probably sell. I was waiting on a 100-400 ii but this on a 7d is good enough if its sharp I dont think canon are as crazy as it may seem. Now a 70-300 2.8 IS thats razor sharp would be worth some pennies !
Upvote
0