what lens?

PaulieC

I can hear the yawns already , but anyway...

I'm going to buy a tele zoom for occasional use. The occasional use would be mainly outdoors and mainly in good light. My list of priorites, in no particular order, are : small size, IQ, discrete, not hugely expensive.

My shortlist is:

Canon 70-300 IS (EUR 510 from Kea). Good reviews on FM, IQ is very good, but apparently noisy. Zooms to 300mm

Canon 70-200 F4 (EUR 540 from Kea). Excellent IQ but massive (for me) and white.

Sigma 70-200 F2.8 (EUR 680 from Kea). Excellent IQ (although not quite as excelent as Canon), black. Still massive.

I'm wary of the canon 70-200 as it's white and not very discrete. The Sigma is black, which is nice, but it's still big. The Canon 70-300 is smallest of the three, zooms to 300, has IS, but is the slowest of the three. IS is a good thing for me - I used to have 2 zooms (28-300 and 70-300 APO) that I couldn't really use as my hands are too shakey...

what to do, what to do? Anyone got any really compelling reasons why I should pick one over another?

rymus

something to be aware of is that the new sigma macro isnt apparently as good IQ wise as the older non macro (which you cant buy anymore).

Maybe it's just me, but I still love my old Canon 70-300 non is. It was second hand, cheap as chips and it's a great lens. Not exactly the fastest in the world but it's good.

Roen

The ƒ4 Canon is small and light, the ƒ2.8 on the other hand......is not.

FreeAnd..

The canon f4 definitely...its not large relative to any of the other white lenses and its fast (not 2.8 fast but autofocus is fast) but mainly IQ is superb...and in the end thats what lenses are there for..

PaulieC

thanks for the replies. I guess the one thing that should trump all others is the image quality, but I'm not sure I can get over it being white! It's just too loud or something for me, although I know loads of people have them, so no offence meant to anyone here. Are there any products out there to make these less conspicuous?

311

Cambo ,I have the 70-300 IS and had the 70-200 F4.

The F4 is a better lens ,but the reach is not very good ,it's less than 3x
The 70-300 is 4.2X and is great for general use. If you want something for sports and low light ,go with the F4.

EDIT ,there are lens covers available at warehousexpress ,don't know what they are like though.

PaulieC

thanks Brian. I can't see myself ever shooting sport and I'd probably always use a tripod for lowlight. I want the F4, but I think I may get more use out of the 70-300 IS. Both would only be used occasionally probably as I tend to use shorter focal lengths most of the time...

magicbastarder

what lens? this lens.

Fajitas!

If you stand within 5cm's of that, it sucks you in.

Heh...Shame about the focusing distance though!

magicbastarder

it probably burns the image onto the film.

311

Thats not a lens ,it's a crystal ball.

It knows the future:D

Fajitas!

_Brian_ wrote:

Thats not a lens ,it's a crystal ball.

It knows the future:D

No, that's the IS version.

It can see 4 stops into the future.

Alternatively:

"The 50mm 0.65 dosn't take photographs - It stops time."

positron

100% Canon 70-200 F4 L.

If you don't like the white color, just get one of those lens-coats - see here: http://www.naturescapes.net/store/product.php?productid=186

PaulieC

positron wrote:

100% Canon 70-200 F4 L.

If you don't like the white color, just get one of those lens-coats - see here: http://www.naturescapes.net/store/product.php?productid=186

yeah, I'm edging toward the Canon 70-200 F4. I was lookin it up on B&H and I saw that they have an IS version too :eek: . Feck!! 4 stops.

Whatever I get, I'm not sure I'd like it to look like one of the guys from East 17

Cameraman

I was recommended to use black Gaffer Tape for white lenses. Apparently it peels off easily, and leaves no nasty residue.

Now - does anyone know where I can get some in Dublin ?

rymus

if you were gonna cover your new purposely white lens in black tape, you'd have to ask yourself why? Why lord why am I buying a big white lens? Why is the lens white in the first place? and so on and so on...

PaulieC

whay are they white? Is it not just cosmetic?

Stephen

Gaffer tape? Any DIY/hardware shop.

Paulw

cambo_gueno wrote:

why are they white? Is it not just cosmetic?

Larger lenses would be more subject to expansion/contraction due to heat absorption in sunlight. White reduces that. :-)

rymus

^ what he said ^

City-Exile

White lenses are a sign of greatness!
If you don't have at least one, you're just a wannabe!

PaulieC

City-Exile wrote:

White lenses are a sign of greatness!
If you don't have at least one, you're just a wannabe!

*furiously ordering white lenses by the credit card load*...

Cameraman

Stephen wrote:

Gaffer tape? Any DIY/hardware shop.

I'll try - but I've never seen it for sale. Lots of other types of sticky tape - yes - but not gaffer tape.

kmick

To be honest if you are shooting sports you probably need the 100-400L IS. I would not use a lot of the long lenses without a tripod either - esp the cheaper ones.