Is this the right thing to do?

311

Im going to sell this lens http://www.adverts.ie/showproduct.php?product=15069&cat=32

And get the 70-300 IS lens instead.
I never use the white lens at all ,but I wreckon i'd use the black one.

magicbastarder

that's racist.

paudie

Just buy a 1.4x converter? Thats what I did, don't know if you're going to reach the same quality as the L with a standard Ef lens, ok the L doesn't have IS but is it reall necessary at 200mm?

I'm just biased because I have the L and I love it

FreeAnd..

Personally there is no way I would sell that lens unless its to get the IS version. Not sure I would bother with the 2.8 version at the moment as its too much of a monster. Why are you selling it? Do you require the extra lenght for nature etc? If so i would reccommend a converter. This lens is very versatile and pin sharp. It is great for a portrait lens and for a lot of outdoor work. The fact that you bought it locally too means that you will get no where near the orginal money back for it

magicbastarder

like the others, i'd be curious as to how that lens is limiting you.

311

It's a great lens ,I'm just looking for something a bit more discreet.

FreeAnd..

to be honest, i wouldnt sacrafice the lens just for a bit of discretion. Its not actually that big a lens either. You could always paint it black...;)

311

I'm mad so ,I'll wait and see by the end of the week what offers I get.
Thanks for the replies.

Shiny

_Brian_ wrote:

It's a great lens ,I'm just looking for something a bit more discreet.

hehe I know the feeling.

Everytime I take out my Bigma 70-200, people stop talking and
start watching me to see what i am going to point it at!!

I plan to get teleconverters for it for the extra reach and maybe
might try my hand at a little astrophotography.

The only reason I would sell it is if i could get my hands on a
cheap Canon 70-200 IS (f2.8). (Also a monster hehe)

magicbastarder

can you post polls here?
i'd be curious to see what focal lengths (35mm equivalent) people work at.
me, it's 24mm and 50mm most of the time.
might be worth a poll.

Shiny

Yeah I think you can.

But you are limited to 10 options I think.
(unless you are a mod)


I would probably be in the 20-40mm region too.
Can flickr search your exif data to get an average?

Fajitas!

Was just talking to Mikeanywhere about this - 90% of the time, 50mm on my 5D and 30mm on my 300D...so 50...

Use my 10-20 and 105 a bit too, but not as much. Never use my 35-105, 70-300 nor 18-55.

Shiny

http://www.thezeal.com/blog/?p=145

this would be close to what I am talking about.

Basically point it to a directory and it gets
your exif stats so you can see which focal
length, aperature, etc you use the most.

311

Do any of you think that a lens like the 70-300 IS would be more useful on a small frame camera ??
Anytime I put the 70-200 it just doesn't seem to have enough zoom ,it's more like a handy portrait lens .

Shiny

Get a 1.4x teleconverter and see how you find that.

If it doesn't work out, you wont have a problem selling it.

elven

Shiny wrote:

http://www.thezeal.com/blog/?p=145

this would be close to what I am talking about.

Basically point it to a directory and it gets
your exif stats so you can see which focal
length, aperature, etc you use the most.

That's so much fun! Oh dear, I must be really bored at work... well at least now I have reassured myself that I have definitely got my money's worth out of the 50mm, looks like I use it 80% of the time...

Brian, surely a teleconverter would be better than forking out that much for a whole new lens, for the sake of the extra length... and as for being discreet - do you want to use it for city shooting where you might draw attention to yourself, or are you just into the wildlife (of the other variety)? I think, for the money you'd get for such a serious lens, it couldn't be worth selling... maybe you've been browsing too many gear sites when you've been stuck in the house :rolleyes:

rymus

although the range is a bit limiting, I wouldnt swap my 70-200 2.8 IS for anything. I am going to get a 1.4x converter for it in B&H in a few weeks time though, it does get a bit limiting when sitting on a beach taking photos of surfing.

The 70-300 IS is a nice lens, I just think it'd be a step backwards from the 70-200 f4. Here's an idea... Keep the 70-200 and buy a 70-300 IS!

PaulieC

according to Fred Miranda reviews , the 70-300 IS is an excellent lens, an L in all but name, so while it would technically be a step backwards, it's proably going to be more useful to you. What's better: a picture that would have been excellent quality if you only had enough zoom to get it, or a picture of almost-excellent quality that you did actually get?
Seems like you should be able to sell your 70-200 back to Conns and buy the 70-300 and not lose any money. At the price you're selling the 70-200, you're losing almost have of what you paid because it's possible to get this lens brand new for about EUR600 off ebay or from B&H.

Covey

@ Rymus,

i have the 70-200 and a 1.4 converter and still too short for decent surfing pics, unless of course you get in amongst them like Paudie

T.

311

elven wrote:

Brian, surely a teleconverter would be better than forking out that much for a whole new lens, for the sake of the extra length... and as for being discreet - do you want to use it for city shooting where you might draw attention to yourself, or are you just into the wildlife (of the other variety)? I think, for the money you'd get for such a serious lens, it couldn't be worth selling... maybe you've been browsing too many gear sites when you've been stuck in the house :rolleyes:

I do find myself needing a bit more range for wildlife and all the talk a while back about IS function in a lens ,I thought it was a better option for me.
I refuse to hand over anymore money for stuff ,thats why I would sell the 70-200 .The only thing I want to be forking out for next is a 30D and I can't justify buying one for a while yet.
I got some great shots with the old 75-300 lens that was lying in the house ,but the quality is terrible .

The lens i was thinking about is not the green DO one ,it's only the standard 70-300 IS one.

I never use the 70-200 .

Covey

Get the 400mm fixed lens is my advice. It's only 5.6 but pin sharp and doesn't cost the earth, about €800 if you buy from the states. Then you have the reach and the quality for wildlife.

T.

magicbastarder

that's what i'd suggest. i've never liked teleconverters, they always struck me as a half arsed solution. what's the point in having a €1000 lens with a €200 teleconverter, which makes it behave like a €300 longer lens?

FreeAnd..

that's what i'd suggest. i've never liked teleconverters, they always struck me as a half arsed solution. what's the point in having a €1000 lens with a €200 teleconverter, which makes it behave like a €300 longer lens?

Personally id reccommend the 1.4x, there is no loss of quality at all and it gives the extra lenght. The first thing I would do if i were you is actually spend a few weeks using the lens. You say that you never use it so change that and you might actually like the lens. No point selling a lens that you have dont use for the sake that you dont use it...just start using it - should solve your problem...

Covey

The 1.4 is grand, I have it also. But it doesn't give the extra length. 280mm is short for quite a lot of wildlife.

magicbastarder

FreeAnd.. wrote:

Personally id reccommend the 1.4x, there is no loss of quality at all and it gives the extra lenght. The first thing I would do if i were you is actually spend a few weeks using the lens. You say that you never use it so change that and you might actually like the lens. No point selling a lens that you have dont use for the sake that you dont use it...just start using it - should solve your problem...

i don't use canon gear, so i can't comment on that particular teleconverter, but i've used two on olympus 35mm kit, and wasn't impressed. loss of light, and softening of the image.

FreeAnd..

is the 400mm not alot larger though especially as he's looking for something more discreet. How big is the 400mm?

FreeAnd..

I cant fault the 1.4 on the canon anyway...i do agree that it wont give you the full lenght that may be needed for wildlife but i wouldnt sell the 70-200 just because of that. It is far more versatile than just for wildlife...

311

FreeAnd.. wrote:

I cant fault the 1.4 on the canon anyway...i do agree that it wont give you the full lenght that may be needed for wildlife but i wouldnt sell the 70-200 just because of that. It is far more versatile than just for wildlife...

I'm not very versatile though:rolleyes:

Covey

The 400mm is about the same size as the 70-200, light and can be easily hand held in decent light.

311

Only cambo has agreed with me ,this thread will probably come back to haunt me.
I don't have any history with SLR's and I didn't grow up with my parents using cameras ,so I think I'm entitled to make mistakes

No one here seems to have used the 70-300 IS ??

Fajitas!

Greysoul and 440hz both have it...

311

Fajitas! wrote:

Greysoul and 440hz both have it...

Cheers al ,I thought greysoul had the DO version .
Maybe one of them would share a view of it.

Greysoul

_Brian_ wrote:

Cheers al ,I thought greysoul had the DO version .
Maybe one of them would share a view of it.

Yep, I have the DO IS version. It's lovely -- far sharper, lighter and less conspicuous than the 100-400mm behemoth I used to have -- and probably my most-used lens overall, perfect for zooming in and isolating subjects when wandering through town.

Noah

311

Cheers greysoul,if your wondering how I knew what lens you had ,i seen a set of photos of the march day.

Would you use the IS on the camera much ?

Greysoul

_Brian_ wrote:

Cheers greysoul,if your wondering how I knew what lens you had ,i seen a set of photos of the march day.

Would you use the IS on the camera much ?

ah, alright And yeah, I never turn it off... I hate lugging a tripod around, and my hands aren't that steady.

311

Great ,that should do me so.

Thanks ,
Brian.