Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Economical zoom lenses 70+mm

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    Posts
    694

    Economical zoom lenses 70+mm

    A good IS is worth the extra money in many situations IMO.
    Here is an example @252mm 1/20s (fortunately the bird moved either very quickly or not at all):

    101 _MG_7568 by ahab1372, on Flickr


    Arnt
    Arnt

  2. #12
    Senior Member francongphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Burnaby, British Columbia
    Posts
    118
    I'd go with the 70-200mm f/4 non IS L if your budget is around $600. But if you can save up a little bit more, go for the 70-200mm f/4 IS L. IMO, it has a slightly better IQ than the non-IS version, and it'd be perfect for hiking, as it's much lighter than the f/2.8 IS L that you mentioned. I love my 70-200mm f/4 IS L. The IS is great when I need it, I've taken many shots with the IS version under low light situations (under 1/30s!). This wouldn't have been possible with the non-IS version, since it's a pretty long focal length (expecially on crop sensor). So I say wait a little long and go for the IS version. It'll be perfect for landscape, hiking because it's light, and good reach for wildlife. Good luck with your decision!
    Canon 5D Mk II, 550D/T2i, 50mm f/1.4 USM, 100mm f/2.8 L USM, 17-40mm f/4 L USM, 24-105mm f/4 L USM, 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM, 320EX speedlite

    Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/franco_ng/

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,443
    Regardless of the price of the 70-300 non-L , they've already got a poor performing, long reaching, 75-300mm, and want a step up in quality. They don't need a second sub-par lens in the same focal length range. What they need a good solid lens (and a sucker to buy their old lens! )

    With their existing lens they can answer the question of if they want/need over 200mm, and whether they use over 200mm more often than wishing the lens was a bit faster. Given the original budget, we can assume the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II is out... though the f/2.8 non-IS might fall in the accepted higher price range too, just to confuse matters further.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    388
    I really like the 70-200 f/4L IS lens. I do mostly landscapes which involves hiking, so the f/4 makes the backpack a lot lighter, especially on the way back. It's generally an outdoor lens but it sounds like that would fit your needs. It's a versatile lens, so it's one to keep in your possession for a long time. Good luck with your choice and please post some of your results! Happy shooting, Erno.

    All shot using a Canon 7D and the 70-200 f/4L IS lens (top 3 with tripod, last 3 without):

    [img]

    Burnt Orange Sunset by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

    [img]Big Sur(f), California by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

    [img]
    Ring of Fire by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

    [img]
    With a Flick(r) of the Wrist by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

    [img]
    'The Stuccoed Ladies' in Capitola, CA by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

    [img]
    Red boats. Capitola Wharf by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]
    Last edited by erno james; 01-24-2013 at 06:26 AM.

  5. #15
    I have rented the 70-200 F4 and own the 70-300 IS USM. I also own the 70-200 2.8 II. I have never tried the 70-300L. I think that the 70-300 IS USM is a great deal if you want the extra reach. It has nice color and good sharpness for $500. If you want the great color, sharpness, and detail, then I think the 70-200 F4 is the way to go for around $700. All the best.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •