Secret L lens for 4 to 5 hundred??

T

TonyGuitar

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Is the new Canon EF 70-300 is usm the shortcut to L lens quality? I seem unable to swallow L lens pricing.
Well PhotoZone.com seems to think so. Check their quality review.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review?start=2

I will buy this lens. Have been birding with a 200 so this will be a step up. 400 is just too bulky right now. Maybe later.
I hope this helps many of you, like me, who just can not afford to go to L glass yet.
BTW...here is some birding with 200 zooom ..
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...401.252078.602816401&pid=6345800&id=602816401
so, looking forward to the 70 - 300 lens..
 
Last edited:
Canon EF 70-300 is usm for 4 to 5 hundred is not new nor an L by a very long margin.

The new L version is £1k, but in a different league.

If you want a cheap but good L get 70-200mm f/4L USM.
 
I had one and it was no L lens. I was more than happy with the performance until I got hold of a 70-200 F4 L. Now I want more L glass. This photography lark can be very expensive sometimes.
 
from my personal experience, the 100mm f2.8 macro is considered to be a 'hidden' L. optically, it's very, very good. focussing is fast and accurate. it falls between the range of the zoom you've specified.

i've got the f2.8 version of the 70-200, if you can't stetch to that, the f4 version is great too and well worth the cash. it's an awesome lens and blows the 70-300 is usm out of the water.
 
Once you have L glass there's no going back :D
If it were a drug it would be banned :thumbs:
Regards
Richard
 
This L lens lust is completely lost on me.

Why not buy the best lens for the job regardless of what badge it carries?
 
Clearly you wouldn't do well in marketing if you don't get it :p
 
I'm currently considering a 70-200L and have read that the IS version of the f4 is better than the none IS f2.8 and less expensive. Can anyone confirm this?
________
Lovely Wendie
 
Last edited:
Well I saved the pennies canon 70-200 is f2.8 mmmmmmmmmmmm theres no thinking should I saved up that little bit longer. It is a great lens and the pictures and stunning, the price tag is far from nice. As long as you know what you intend to use it for, f4 not really low light. However with light amazing lens to have.
 
woof woof said:
This L lens lust is completely lost on me.

Why not buy the best lens for the job regardless of what badge it carries?
Click to expand...

80% of the time, for canon users, an L lens is the best for the job.
 
For 4-500 quid you can get a 70-200 F4 L Non IS brand new!
 
canon 70-300 IS USM is a hidden L lens... ok hence why I sold mine... strech it till 300 for bird photography and many a time I went home ultra dissapionted as to why I hardly ever nailed anything that was 20m or further...things just go soft no matter what.
Smaller then 300 like 200 and its stunning but hey I wanted to use it at 300

The Canon 50-250 IS is considered at certain reviews as better for a fraction of it and the 70-200 L is almost same price and def much better... wish I got me that one in the 1st place

and for those who mention the 100 Macro between the old non L and the new L macro 100 2.8 IQ is the same... just the IS is different, thicker body and the red line on the front.. and I belive the L is also plastic

personally from the sad experience I had with the 70-300 I wouldnt bother today even with the L version of it
 
killwilly said:
I'm currently considering a 70-200L and have read that the IS version of the f4 is better than the none IS f2.8 and less expensive. Can anyone confirm this?
Click to expand...

Yes. 70-200L 4 IS is a fabulous lens. Extemely sharp, with all the lastest L-grade trimmings like great build quality, weather proofing, rounded diaphragm blades, 4-stops IS. It is a completely different lens to the non-IS version in every respect, and only bettered (very marginally) by the new 70-200L 2.8 IS MkII - but of course that is also f/2.8.

The new 70-300L is on a par it seems. Authoritative comparison tests on that are thin on the ground at the minute, but it promises to be exceptionally good. Well ahead of the non-L 70-300 by a good margin (though that is still a very good lens for the money) and as most things fit neatly in line by price order, the EF-S 55-250 brings up the rear. Not that that's a bad lens either, not at all, but its main virtue is price - nothing can touch it for the money - and very light weight.

There aren't really any 'hidden' L-grade lenses. There quite a few very sharp non-L lenses about, but there's much more to it than that.
 
woof woof said:
This L lens lust is completely lost on me.

Why not buy the best lens for the job regardless of what badge it carries?
Click to expand...

I do and it normally is a L lens when you make a living from photography you buy the best tools for the job lost shots are pounds shillings and pence in the bank account
Regards
Richard
 
the current lens is way better than the previous versions of the lens but it's not what you would call a hidden L lens.

there are no hidden L lenses. there are lenses which have good optics but they don't have the build quality you associate with the L branding. also just because it's an L lens does not make it perfect. the 24-70, the 50, the mk1 16-35 have their flaws and let's not forget about the flare problem that the 24-105 had when it was first released.
 
A better bet for sharpness in the 75-300mm range is the canon 100-300mm 5.6 it lacks i.s but it is still sharper than the 75-300mm group excluding the new 75-300mm l version it's build is slightly better as well. Secondhand about £80.00-£100.00
Regards
Richard
 
Hi guys

the 70-200f4 L Is in my budget, i didnt relise you could get l glass this cheap.

cna anyone tell me if this will tc without loosing af.


cheers

john
 
CLARKO said:
Hi guys

the 70-200f4 L Is in my budget, i didnt relise you could get l glass this cheap.

cna anyone tell me if this will tc without loosing af.


cheers

john
Click to expand...

Yes, works well :) But 1.4x only - you can sometimes make it work with 2x, but it's really not very good, if it works at all.
 
Last edited:
Best move was to post this question to all of you. Thank you for your guidance and your insights. Learning about the lemon lenses is just as important as knowing about the good ones.

I had no idea the 70-200 was such a favourite.

Let's see... 200mm X 1.6 makes it a 320mm zoom on my cropped sensor Rebel T2i.

Not exactly 300-400+, but still quite bird worthy, even though many birders deem 400 - 700 to be essential.

LOST; You make a good point. If I did earn income from photography then L lenses are required in order to compete. However, as I am a 'mature student', there is a need to economize. [second hand L glass?]

P-CHAN; Thanks so much. Many advised me against this lens but your personal account has saved me making a costly mistake. Thanks for taking the time.

HOPPYUK; You suggest the new 70 - 300 is between the 55 -250 and the 70 - 300 L. I think that's correct. The non-L 70-300 gets soft at 200+ so the L lens still seems essential....Damn!

LOST; The Canon 100 - 300 5.6 seems a little dark, and no IS, yet if it delivers IQ at say 275mm then it may do in bright weather.

Thanks so much to you all. If this helps to guide others to a better lens choice, then so much the better. TG
 
Hi Hoppy

thanks for that this is the answer for me for now. 60 d with 70-200l plus 1.4tc.

it gets me 448mm i think? which as near 500mm as iam going to get for now with my budget. I know i will probably loose an f stop but i will live with that. on everyday stuff i will be using a decent lens.

Tony this would do you as well as iam trying to do the same stuff as you.probably not as well.

the only thing this would leave me is the 16/18-70 gap? just kit lens that for now or a nifty for 70 from kerso?

thanks again

john
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top