Hoping someone can give me some insight - been looking at getting the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM next but I don't know all that much about it. Furthermore, is the
IS version really worth paying double? Have also considered the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, but again, nothing to go on here but reviews.
Or any suggestions for a different one altogether? I'd really like to try something different and I think a telephoto is just what I need; just clueless :)
I would definitely pay double for IS in a telephoto lens. That is something I don't like about Canon. Pentax has IS in the body, makes the lenses a lot cheaper...
As far as the other stuff, I have no idea either.
I have the non IS version of the 70-200 and love it! It's light and easy to handle,don't think its worth the extra cost.All of my L lenses are non IS.The 400mm Prime gets the most use,for birds.
I get to play a lot with a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens, and I'd say it's great (the IS is totally worth it especially if you have shaky hands) and you can't beat its price.
Here's a photo I took with it:
You seem to mostly enjoy nature photography. I would say go with a prime lens, simply because primes are always cheaper, lighter, and sharper than zooms.
I just bought the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro. This is an amazing lens and had suddenly become my favorite. It is just silly sharp it's so good. The 150mm focal length gives you a powerful telephoto and the fact it had a minimum focus distance of 12 inches makes it a very powerful macro lens.
I don't shoot a lot of macro, but it's nice to know this lens is sharp, a telephoto, and a macro all in one. I highly recommend this thing! Runs about $750 new.
I just recently purchased the 70-300mm, and it has been a fun lens. I think I spoiled myself when my first "real" lens purchase was a 100mm f/2 prime, so I have come to expect that speed and focus with every lens I use, I have to remind myself that this lens is not an F2. It is extremely clear at 300mm and notice that I automatically zoom out to the 300 every time ~ because I can :)- I do find that I have to adjust the ISO to keep the lens from maxing out at the 5.6, even when I think it is bright outside, but once I do, the shots come out great (or as great as I can make them ~ I have seen some amazing shots on here taken with this lens!)
I also like that the lens is black, I am not that great of a photographer and I like that I can blend in instead of sticking out with that big 'ol white lens :-) at least until I somewhat figure out what I am doing.
The IS really doesn't help me because I am usually trying to grab a bird before it flies away or shooting outdoor sports.....also, I picked up one of the 70-200 IS lenses and WOW it was heavy (either that or I am just a total wimp LOL)
Sorry for babbling, hope this helps!!
@indiannie_jones Big peeper has similar specs, they can be picked up a good bit cheaper, however it's probably a little less sharp.
Also it uses slide zooming rather than twist...
I don't know about paying the extra for IS, though it might help if the weight's annoying...
70-200 is pretty versatile and F/4 is quick enough for lots of situations, worked out well for the fashion shows and managed pretty decently with the moon and dawn shots the other day.
Ebay buy it now for £100 shocks and upsets a little, it has gotten cheap...
What jason said about the 150mm is worth looking in to...
I have the 70-200 f/4L IS, super sharp lens. Much lighter than the70-200 f/2.8 non-IS I have, bought both used to compare and find the f4 and 1.4x teleconverter to be my go to wildlife outdoors combo most used. Here are a couple of pics from the f/4L.
f4 alone in overcast but bright light.
f4 alone in direct bright sunlight
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
As far as the other stuff, I have no idea either.
Here's a photo I took with it:
Hope that helps :)
I just bought the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro. This is an amazing lens and had suddenly become my favorite. It is just silly sharp it's so good. The 150mm focal length gives you a powerful telephoto and the fact it had a minimum focus distance of 12 inches makes it a very powerful macro lens.
I don't shoot a lot of macro, but it's nice to know this lens is sharp, a telephoto, and a macro all in one. I highly recommend this thing! Runs about $750 new.
I also like that the lens is black, I am not that great of a photographer and I like that I can blend in instead of sticking out with that big 'ol white lens :-) at least until I somewhat figure out what I am doing.
The IS really doesn't help me because I am usually trying to grab a bird before it flies away or shooting outdoor sports.....also, I picked up one of the 70-200 IS lenses and WOW it was heavy (either that or I am just a total wimp LOL)
Sorry for babbling, hope this helps!!
Also it uses slide zooming rather than twist...
I don't know about paying the extra for IS, though it might help if the weight's annoying...
70-200 is pretty versatile and F/4 is quick enough for lots of situations, worked out well for the fashion shows and managed pretty decently with the moon and dawn shots the other day.
Ebay buy it now for £100 shocks and upsets a little, it has gotten cheap...
What jason said about the 150mm is worth looking in to...
f4 alone in overcast but bright light.
f4 alone in direct bright sunlight