e_lin Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 ive been searching and the L series lenses are way too much. any ideas? 300 dollars is already a lot of money for a kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Go for a 75-300 USM series lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malabooboo Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 I just got a used canon 70-210 with the fixed f/4 lens for just under $100 on ebay. It doesn't have USM, so the focus is a bit noisy though fast enough for my amateur photography. But you get the fixed f/4 and I personally prefer the push-pull zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_ituarte3 Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 100-300mm 5.6L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond of rish Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 I searched around for months before finally deciding this summer on the tamron 80-300mm f/3.5 (macro) for $150. It sounds cheap but its a lot nicer than some of the canon lenses i've seen for more than twice that price. here's a review on photographyreview.com: http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Tamron%20,AF70-300mm,F-4-5.6,LD/PRD_83616_3128crx.aspxgood luck with your search and feel free to email me for more info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 I bought the later Canon EF 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 USM used and I like it. It is a very nice lens and although not better than my FD 85mm f1.8 and FD 200mm f2.8 it compared reasonably. At 80mm it blew the EF 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 out of the water. Mine had a nice ding on the front element and I bought it for about $50 US. The USM is nice and it is very lightweight. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxdonny Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 If I were in your shoes, I'll buy the discontinued 70-210mm/3.5-4.5 USM (mint for around $150 on eb*y), or shell out more money and get the 70-200mm/4 L. I would NOT get the 70-210/4 (non USM) lens. The 70-210mm/3.5-4.5 is a pretty decent performer for the price, and some says that it's better than 75-300 USM. I can't claimed about that since I've never used the 75-300 USM. There is a review on photo.net about 70-210mm/3.5-4.5 <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon/70-210">here</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonard_richmond7 Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 I just ordered the Canon EF 55-200 f/4-5.6 USM II for $210 (and there's currently a $10 mfr rebate) from B&H Photo (http://www.bhphotovideo.com). The consensus at www.dpreview.com is that it is sharper and contrastier than any of the reasonably priced 70-300 lenses by any manufacturer, its biggest shortcoming being that it only zooms to 200mm. With the 1.6 crop factor on my Digital Rebel (or the 10D, D60, or D30), that's the equivalent of 320mm, plenty long for me. Specs: 3.8" long, 2.8" max diameter, 52mm filter size, 10.9 oz., minimum focus distance 3.9', maximum magnification 1:4.8. Small, light, good price, sharp, contrasty - what more do you want? If you shoot digital (or scan your film), how about profiles to use with the free Panotools' Correct plugin to COMPLETELY correct for any lens distortion? See http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/. I use his free profiles (and this lens is one he has profiles for) along with the free Panorama Tools' Correct plugin for Photoshop to COMPLETELY correct for barrel/pincushion distortion, with no visibile degradation using the sync option of the Correct plugin. (A link to Panorama Tools is included at this site.) You'll end up with 0 distortion, better than even the expensive L lenses. Sound pretty good? That's why I ordered mine yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Katz Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 A used 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM seems like a reasonable option. Its considered sharp, and is well made with extremely fast "ring type" USM focusing, and a non-rotating front element. I owned its cousin, the 100-300 USM, but the general consensus is that the 70-210 had better optics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e_lin Posted December 30, 2003 Author Share Posted December 30, 2003 im using film. i also have a digicam, but with these cheep zooms, things get really soft right? and i can't use unsharp mask on my film unless i scan it which i don't want to do right now :(. plus... im a kid, i don't feel comforatble walking around with a 600 dollar lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Well, heck, I am *not* a kid and sometimes I don't feel comfortable walking around with a $600 lens either. ;) I takes a certain amount of guts to walk onto a NY or Boston subway with a backpack holding over $2K in camera gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_stelly Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 I'd avoid the Canon 75-300s. I've got the USM (non-IS) and I'm not impressed with it at all. I haven't used the 55-200 or 70-210s, so I can't comment on them. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard thompson www.fotoz Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 canon 75-300s are poor. The canon 100-300 ain't much better. For $300-$350, either get an used 100-300 L, you compromise on the build quality. Or for about $200, a new Tamron 70-300 LD 1:2 - much sharper than the 75-300s from my own tests. <br><br> cannot comment on the 70-210s as I've never owned one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard thompson www.fotoz Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Actually, if you only want to shoot up to 200mm then all the 75-300 are 'ok' up to about 200mm, but they get very soft after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron c sunshine coast,qld,a Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Man,has nobody tried the kit 80-200 II?? <br>I've had three 75-300's and this little thing flogs them for sharpness,focus speed and saturation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveb Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 70-210 f4...very nice portrait lens, just a little soft wide open, which is a good thing. This and a 50 f1.8 for $250 total is a great starter set, better than the 4.5-5.6 you get in the basic Canon kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now