English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Was considering the 70-300DO version but now boiled it down to these lenses for my canon 30D with 17-55 2.8 IS

I know they are different lens in the sense of range and also one is L and the other is not. I guess i am just seeing if the L is worth the extra or not - both seem to being raved about at the moemnt and plan to buy one tomorrow in time for chinese new year

any help would be appreciated.

thanks

m

2007-02-15 01:45:08 · 5 answers · asked by martynanstey 1 in Consumer Electronics Cameras

5 answers

Since you seem to have read the reviews and just want some user feedback, try this forum for Canon SLR lenses:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1029
Just type those 2 lenses in the search bar in that forum.
You can expect a few informed opinions here too, but you're in kind of a hurry.
As for me, I'd get the 70-300. I can afford the 70-200 and it's a better lens, but I rarely shoot in that range. Also, I'm not a pro. I can justify a 17-55mm f/2.8 as my main lens, but not a second +$1000 lens for just 5% of my shots.

2007-02-15 03:08:30 · answer #1 · answered by OMG, I ♥ PONIES!!1 7 · 1 0

The 70-300IS lenses is a good alternative if you dont have the money for a L lens. The 70-200mm L F/4 IS will have better imagine quality over the 70-300mm IS lens but if you want that extra 100mm then by all means its a great lens but not as good as the 70-200mm L. My choice would be the 70-200mm L lens IS because it has supeirior quality imagines and glass. I am happy with my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. Most of the time I think you can do without the 300mm feature.

2007-02-15 17:48:52 · answer #2 · answered by Koko 4 · 0 0

in case you're after organic photograph high quality, then i'd decide for the 70-200L F4. I truthfully have the 70-200L F2.8 IS that's outstanding. whether, it is to no longer say that the DO is in any way a foul lens. it is nonetheless amazing up there in photograph high quality, and you will probaly choose something like a 5D or 1Ds to tell any actual difference between the two. some say the only clarification why the DO isn't a "L" lens is basically via fact Canon are employing this greater moderen "Diffractive Optics" glass technologies. there are a number of comments available that say that's a large lens for the dimensions, or as a "holiday lens". in case you're vacationing around, then some large advantages of donning around the lighter greater compact DO lens would certainly outweigh the trouble-free progression in photograph high quality of the 70-2 hundred F4. additionally, if you are going to New Zealand, the greater 100mm (or an entire of around 500mm on a 30D!) would certainly be sensible for taking photos the community organic international there (smaller animals and birds).

2016-10-02 04:27:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I read tons of reviews before purchasing the 70-200 f/4 L lens and it's an amazing lens - mine doesn't have the IS but I've never missed it. Image stabilization stops camera shake but not action and since I'm using the lens to shoot outdoor sports action I'm shooting at a fast enough shutter speed that IS wouldn't even be an issue... my photos are CRYSTAL clear from this lens. You may not need the IS feature on this lens at all depending on what you are using it for. Landscapes? Yes, get the IS. Sports action? no.. you will be shooting at 1/1000 and faster, you don't need IS

2007-02-15 09:05:48 · answer #4 · answered by Basil 3 · 0 0

go to adorama.com
for many choices in lens

2007-02-15 01:52:29 · answer #5 · answered by Elvis 7 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers