Post by: Johnb317 on June 09, 2013, 05:14:45 PM
Whether to go with the 70-200 f4L or the 2.8 L ver. He suggested the 70-300L f4-5.6 (1300.00)
Tamron guy suggested their 70-300 SP whatever after rebates etc. 330.00 (tax included)... in a moment of craziness I bought it, but have 14 days to return.
Part says... only 330, the other says wait till I can afford the additional 1000.00 (ouch)
I primarily shoot the 5DII, 24-105L and like it, but would like a little longer. I shoot in and outdoors, people/landscapes etc. Not too much on animals as it's hard to shoot a bow at the same time. :chuckle:
Thoughts?
Post by: Alchase on June 10, 2013, 07:23:37 AM
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Lens-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000I1X3W8/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1370874024&sr=1-4&keywords=canon+ef+70+200mm (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Lens-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000I1X3W8/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1370874024&sr=1-4&keywords=canon+ef+70+200mm)
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 10, 2013, 07:43:48 AM
Post by: quadrafire on June 10, 2013, 08:04:31 AM
canon 1570g (27oz), tamron 765g.(55oz)
Post by: Smokepole on June 10, 2013, 07:05:32 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 10, 2013, 07:42:42 PM
Post by: brianb231 on June 10, 2013, 08:00:30 PM
I'm selling my Canon T1i kit with extended battery pack, a camera bag and a 50 mil lens for $325. Let me know if you're interested!
Let me knowif you want more info on this.
Regards,
Brian
Post by: huntnphool on June 10, 2013, 08:02:31 PM
Not a camera guy but My hunting partners Son is into photography and he is selling the following:You should probably post it in the classifieds.
I'm selling my Canon T1i kit with extended battery pack, a camera bag and a 50 mil lens for $325. Let me know if you're interested!
Let me knowif you want more info on this.
Regards,
Brian
Post by: brianb231 on June 10, 2013, 08:09:50 PM
Not a camera guy but My hunting partners Son is into photography and he is selling the following:You should probably post it in the classifieds.
I'm selling my Canon T1i kit with extended battery pack, a camera bag and a 50 mil lens for $325. Let me know if you're interested!
Let me knowif you want more info on this.
Regards,
Brian
I am not really active in selling it. It was just a coincidence that a few minutes ago I heard My friends son was selling his and then I read this thread. Thought I would share.
Post by: Smokepole on June 10, 2013, 08:12:30 PM
Post by: brianb231 on June 10, 2013, 08:18:18 PM
Thanks
Brian
Post by: Don Fischer on June 11, 2013, 07:53:42 AM
You can invest a lot of money into lense's that take better photo's than you do or you can spend a lot less on a like lense from an after market maker that takes photo's most people think are great. With the difference you can buy another good lense.
Post by: huntnphool on June 11, 2013, 09:44:14 AM
Over on 24 hr campfire in the photography section is a Tamron Rep. No need to ask him about len's, he will recommend a Tamron. But dig through and find some of his photo's, terrific. I think how much you plan on shooting with a len's should help figure out what one you get. Then your own skill level. Take someone like me and I take photo's I like to look at and tech things in the photo I seldom see. A nice photo to me is a nice photo. I can't see the things in a photo well enough to get critical with a photo. A high dollar lense would probably be wasted on me. So would it on you? I have a 55-300 Nikon lens, not high dollar at all and I have a 70-300 Sigma, again even less of a high dollar lense.Both take photo's that satisfy me. What I do have a pretty good grasp on is the difference between $350 and $1000! Most pro's say go with the camera manufacturer's len's and usually the more they are, the better they like them. Seem's that most really good photographer's chase that elusive perfect photo but most everything I look at of their's is perfect. Even if you do it for money, how perfect does the photo need to be? The things that one guy doesn't like about a photo, a really good photographer tears apart and 98% of the rest of the people think it's great. Most people thing a good photo is only made by a good camera; the old "You must have a camera" ploy we all like to hear.
You can invest a lot of money into lense's that take better photo's than you do or you can spend a lot less on a like lense from an after market maker that takes photo's most people think are great. With the difference you can buy another good lense.
One major difference, or consideration, is that when you purchase a pre owned Canon L series, you can use it for a couple years and sell it to upgrade, with a much better depreciation factor. I doubt I would lose a dime if I were to sell my lenses right now, compared to what I paid for them. In fact, looking on eBay, I would make a decent profit on a couple of them, I seriously doubt that happens with most of the Tamron/Sigma etc lenses, which to me makes the decision a no brainer. :twocents:
Post by: Bean Counter on June 11, 2013, 09:48:15 AM
Yesterday I just sold my third Canon branded lens. I bought all three lenses that I sold used and was patient to find a good deal on them. I was also patient while they were listed on Craigslist to wait until the right buyer came along. as it turns out, I bought these lenses used, enjoyed using them, and then sold them for MORE money than I paid for them. Try doing that with a Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc...
Post by: huntnphool on June 11, 2013, 03:06:25 PM
IMHO, if you compare binoculars to a camera lens, camera lenses are a much better deal. Lenses strike me as far more mechanically sophisticated than binos, yet we will drop up to $2k on them. Even if you don't have that chunk of change, you probably know that you get what you pay for. I've heard that the off brands, at least Tamron, may even offer vibration compensation, but it doesn't compare to Nikon or Canon's image stabilization. I've heard it sucks. I don't own any Tamron lenses.Case and point! ;)
Yesterday I just sold my third Canon branded lens. I bought all three lenses that I sold used and was patient to find a good deal on them. I was also patient while they were listed on Craigslist to wait until the right buyer came along. as it turns out, I bought these lenses used, enjoyed using them, and then sold them for MORE money than I paid for them. Try doing that with a Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc...
Post by: Smokepole on June 11, 2013, 04:48:31 PM
Over on 24 hr campfire in the photography section is a Tamron Rep. No need to ask him about len's, he will recommend a Tamron. But dig through and find some of his photo's, terrific. I think how much you plan on shooting with a len's should help figure out what one you get. Then your own skill level. Take someone like me and I take photo's I like to look at and tech things in the photo I seldom see. A nice photo to me is a nice photo. I can't see the things in a photo well enough to get critical with a photo. A high dollar lense would probably be wasted on me. So would it on you? I have a 55-300 Nikon lens, not high dollar at all and I have a 70-300 Sigma, again even less of a high dollar lense.Both take photo's that satisfy me. What I do have a pretty good grasp on is the difference between $350 and $1000! Most pro's say go with the camera manufacturer's len's and usually the more they are, the better they like them. Seem's that most really good photographer's chase that elusive perfect photo but most everything I look at of their's is perfect. Even if you do it for money, how perfect does the photo need to be? The things that one guy doesn't like about a photo, a really good photographer tears apart and 98% of the rest of the people think it's great. Most people thing a good photo is only made by a good camera; the old "You must have a camera" ploy we all like to hear.
You can invest a lot of money into lense's that take better photo's than you do or you can spend a lot less on a like lense from an after market maker that takes photo's most people think are great. With the difference you can buy another good lense.
I have sold rights to many photos over the years. If you sell photos, they need to absolutely perfect. Stock photography is inspected thoroughly before it is accepted into a stock library. It is zoomed up to 100% and if there is noise, motion blur, purple fringing, lens blur -- it gets rejected. A lot of us have worked hard to improve our photography throughout our adult lives, from film to the new digital format. It takes a really good lens to take really good shots.
It would behoove any ambitious photographer -- who enjoys learning, and seeing himself grow as an artist -- to buy the finest lenses he can afford.
Post by: boneaddict on June 11, 2013, 05:11:39 PM
Everyone gets tempted and makes the 3rd party lens mistake at some time (I have done it). There are some that are good values and about equal the name brand, such as a sigma macro lens. There is an ok sigma 50mm lens. By and large, they are inferior and eventually, if your photography progresses, you'll learn to hate the limitations of the lens. An f5.6 lens indoors isn't very useful whether Canon or not. Having that extra stop or two would be handy. If you don't need the reach, a 70-200 in the f2.8 flavor seems more suitable...Wouldn't expect a better explanation than this.
I bought 3rd party lens because that was really all I could afford on a high schoolers budget, but I have long since used them, even if they seemed like good glass. They just don't compare.