I would go with the 70-200 L and a 1.4x converter. That would bring you nearly to 300mm and it is much better image quality. Unless IS is really important to you.
I would go with the 70-200 L and a 1.4x converter. That would bring you nearly to 300mm and it is much better image quality. Unless IS is really important to you.
nwa FOREVER!
Well, now looking over the thread, I have one more question:
Would you rather have the 70-200 F/4 L w/ a 1.4x converter
Or the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS?
Is IS really that much better? I have situations where every once and a while, an indoor telephoto would be awesome, but it would usually be used outside. This is a really tough decision for me, I would like IS, but everything points to the 70-200 being a way better lens...
nwa FOREVER!
(My opinion) is, those 2 lenes have close image quality.Originally Posted by nwafan20
I am for as much reach as possible. (300 over 200 anyday;)
The IS is amazing, it saves lots of photos. DTW area dosnt always have the greatist weather, so IS is good for bad weather.
Dont forget when u put the converter on it the f-stop will have a bigger # that means its a slower lens.
I had the 70-300mmIS but I needed more reach thats y i got the 50-500mm bigma. I miss the IS, I can only shoot in bright sun.
The 70-300mm also has the IS panning mode, Thats a very cool feature.
I say do some more research, look at some reviews, forums.
Oh, the 70-300mm portrait problem is now fixed, so no need to wout rry about that.
But, IS will help out A LOT.
Well, I decided to lookup on the resource I had forgotten about till now, probably the best lens testing site out there, and his data showed that the 70-300 IS is much sharper than the 70-200 w/ a 1.4x converter. Without the 1.4x, the 70-200L just barely beats the 70-300 IS, but I really need the extra reach.
70-300 IS: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses ... /index.htm
70-200 f/4 L: http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/can ... /index.htm
So... based on this data, plus IS, I feel the 70-300 may be a better lens.
Do you guys see how torn I am on this?
nwa FOREVER!
For me, it comes down to price. Both of those lenses will set you back a little over 500 buckarros, but the teleconverter sets you back an additional 100-200 bucks, depending on what brand you go with. One day, I hope to own a teleconverter along with several prime lenses. But I have only been doing photography for about two years now, so I believe the 300 will suit my needs for the time being. Putting out extra cash for a lens combination that will get me relatively similar results, and adding in the fact that I'm a college student with little to no extra money? That isnt gunna happen.
Shoot first, ask questions later.
dfalk.smugmug.com
A great place to buy lenses/cameras is Costco.com
You can return the lens 5 years from now if you want.
Last time I checked they had the 70-300mmIS, for al ot cheaper too.
MadCat, do you have a Costco membership? I might send you to buy it for me if you do.. :D
nwa FOREVER!
My MOM does. My friend might have one too. But I dont know if my mom would want to do that.
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.as ... c=&topnav=
$650 at ritz, its cheaper at costco.
I was joking, I have a friend who has one so I might go with him to look at their prices
nwa FOREVER!
B&H has it for $526...they win agian!
Shoot first, ask questions later.
dfalk.smugmug.com
Costco has GREAT return policy, you cay return it ANY time:)Originally Posted by GrummanFan
"Any time", means 30 days, 5 years, 10 years..., it is a VERY good return policy.
Thats y I would go for costco.
Not anymore...it is only 1 year nowOriginally Posted by madcatimages
The three most common expressions in aviation are, "Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" and "Oh Crap".
Arg! That not cool :cry:Originally Posted by Derf
1 year is still good though.
1 Year is standard Canon Warranty if I remember correctly.
nwa FOREVER!
Bookmarks