Aubrey
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8
- Edit My Images
- No
EDIT: I've just realised I should have posted this in the Cameras, Lenses and Accessories forum, sorry.
Okay, I can't make my mind.
I'd love a decent 70/100 to 300 mm Canon lens, and I'd like to treat myself to an L lens. However, I can't seem to find a 100-300 L lens that's in my budget, although I can afford an 'ordinary' 70-300mm one, OR a 70-200mm L lens.
So, before I go and pester my local photography shop...
How big is the difference in quality between the two? (Obviously, I'm figuring that there's a pretty large difference, but I want to know if I can get away with a cheaper lens. I know that L lenses are excellent, but are lesser Canon lenses 'good', or just 'okay'?)
Is it worth sacrificing the extra range for quality of an L lens? 70-300 is nice, but I can live with 70-200 quite happily.
I've been getting on fine with a 70-200mm lens so far, so I might just buy the damn L lens and get a Sigma 300mm later. I'd rather not, though, as I have to carry enough lenses around with me as it is. (On that note, is there really a big difference between Sigma and ordinary Canon zoom lenses? I've often heard that there isn't, but I want to see what any Canon purists have to say.)
The only Canon lens I've ever used in my life is the 18-55mm one that came with my 300D (it is, in my humble opinion, a bit poo.) I've been using Sigma and Zuiko OM lenses that I got second-hand off ebay, so basically, any new lens will probably seem impressive to me. (The OM-fit lenses do the job fine and were great for me to learn with, but lately I've been finding myself thinking, 'hmm, this picture could be sharper.)
Okay, I can't make my mind.
I'd love a decent 70/100 to 300 mm Canon lens, and I'd like to treat myself to an L lens. However, I can't seem to find a 100-300 L lens that's in my budget, although I can afford an 'ordinary' 70-300mm one, OR a 70-200mm L lens.
So, before I go and pester my local photography shop...
How big is the difference in quality between the two? (Obviously, I'm figuring that there's a pretty large difference, but I want to know if I can get away with a cheaper lens. I know that L lenses are excellent, but are lesser Canon lenses 'good', or just 'okay'?)
Is it worth sacrificing the extra range for quality of an L lens? 70-300 is nice, but I can live with 70-200 quite happily.
I've been getting on fine with a 70-200mm lens so far, so I might just buy the damn L lens and get a Sigma 300mm later. I'd rather not, though, as I have to carry enough lenses around with me as it is. (On that note, is there really a big difference between Sigma and ordinary Canon zoom lenses? I've often heard that there isn't, but I want to see what any Canon purists have to say.)
The only Canon lens I've ever used in my life is the 18-55mm one that came with my 300D (it is, in my humble opinion, a bit poo.) I've been using Sigma and Zuiko OM lenses that I got second-hand off ebay, so basically, any new lens will probably seem impressive to me. (The OM-fit lenses do the job fine and were great for me to learn with, but lately I've been finding myself thinking, 'hmm, this picture could be sharper.)