Skip to Content

Canon Lenses

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment
User avatar
Muhammad
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 2188
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:33 pm

Canon Lenses

Unread postby Muhammad » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:35 pm

28-300 3.5-5.6L IS USM

i need info on this lens.DQ,since ive already bought the 100-400 do i need this lens as well?
i have a friend in Malaysia coming to SA this Friday and i need to ask him to bring me afew lenses.
Canon "L"coholic

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17941
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Unread postby DuQues » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:55 pm

It's not a super lens... I'm not a big fan of 10x zoom anyway.

If you have the 100-400 all you need is the short end, from wideangle to 100 mm, like the Canon 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
You may want to consider having him bring over the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, or the 10-22 one that Madach has used a lot on his latest trip. He has posted a lot of photo's taken with that on his website.
Arriving currently: The photos from our trip! Overhere! :yaya:

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17198
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread postby bert » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:51 pm

If i were u i would invest in a wide-angel lens.
Then you have the whole area covered

User avatar
Muhammad
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 2188
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:33 pm

Unread postby Muhammad » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:36 pm

DQ,ive got both these lenses i.e 17-40 and 10-22.its about time i go for some lessons.after my i other lenses arrive i will post in kit parade.
hoping this hobby doesnt turn to mental illness
Canon "L"coholic

User avatar
Jay
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:10 pm
Location: Golden Mile,West Coast, CFG

Unread postby Jay » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:49 pm

Muhammad wrote:DQ,ive got both these lenses i.e 17-40 and 10-22.its about time i go for some lessons.after my i other lenses arrive i will post in kit parade.
hoping this hobby doesnt turn to mental illness


too late, you are already inflicted, just prepare yourself for HUGE dents in your credit card :wink: :lol:

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17198
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread postby bert » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:15 pm

Muhammad wrote:DQ,ive got both these lenses i.e 17-40 and 10-22.its about time i go for some lessons.after my i other lenses arrive i will post in kit parade.
hoping this hobby doesnt turn to mental illness


Dont mess around with Muhammad :D

User avatar
delboysafa
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: From East London S.A., but living in Surrey, UK

Anyone using a 70-200mm F2.8 L or 17-40mm L

Unread postby delboysafa » Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:23 pm

Am interested in purchasing either one of these for my 20D in the next 6-10 months. I am covered on 200mm Prime currently with my 200mm F2.8 L MK2 and I do have the 17-85mm IS (EF-S). Only reason I am considering the 70-200 f2.8 is because of the flexibility of the zoom. Is the IS really worth it?

The 17-40mm is just a thought as I have a friend who want to get rid of his for R4350 and its L glass.

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17941
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Re: Anyone using a 70-200mm F2.8 L or 17-40mm L

Unread postby DuQues » Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:35 pm

delboysafa wrote:Is the IS really worth it?

Oh yes! It's worth every dime you pay for it!

But if you have a look at the kit-topic you would see that i.e. Madach has both these lenses.
The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is called the sharpest lense ever made.

{Making space for Madach here....}
Arriving currently: The photos from our trip! Overhere! :yaya:

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

User avatar
delboysafa
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: From East London S.A., but living in Surrey, UK

Unread postby delboysafa » Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:50 pm

Will wait for his response (hopefully)

What about the non-IS version of the 70-200mm, have been offered it for around R7200

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17198
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread postby bert » Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:24 pm

delboysafa wrote:Will wait for his response (hopefully)

What about the non-IS version of the 70-200mm, have been offered it for around R7200


Same quality glass. Know a few guys how use it

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17941
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Unread postby DuQues » Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:35 pm

It is one stop slower (f/4) but great glass. But if you can pay it go for the f/2.8 IS.
Arriving currently: The photos from our trip! Overhere! :yaya:

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

User avatar
Salva
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:41 am
Location: The country of compromises

Unread postby Salva » Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:41 pm

Planning to buy the same lens but nikkor! I have red fantastic comments on these kind of lenses. On a DSLR it gives you a focal distance of 105-300mm which is ideal for game and f/2.8 means superfast + on top of that IS (VR): no wonder it is super sharp.

Only the price keeps me from buying it today. (at the speed I'm saving money it will probably be in at least two years :cry: )
U lacht en U heeft gelijk dat U lacht maar het is niet om mee te lachen

User avatar
avon vosloo
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:24 am
Location: Kempton Park

Unread postby avon vosloo » Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:53 pm

Ah-ha - another person with champagne taste & beer budget - like myself.

If only 2 years - but yes, that's what I'm aiming for - same lense

:wink:

User avatar
peterpiper
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:46 pm
Location: In the studio for now

Unread postby peterpiper » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:13 pm

Just something to consider.

I use a 70 -200 IS f2.8 but do not think it is the sharpest lense ever made especially if you are using it hand held. ( Might be the sharpest for hand held images) My sharpest lense ever was the 300 F4 L which got stolen a long time ago so I upgraded to the 300 2.8. But I would seriously question spending so much more money on any 2.8 lense now with digital. In the days of Velvia 50 asa it was a big advantage but not when you can easily shoot with 200 asa. The lense I have heard so many people rave about is the 100 - 400 IS Not a 2.8 but perfect with digital. In Antarctica I know proffessionals who almost use nothing else.
Home is where you hang your @

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17198
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread postby bert » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:49 pm

Another advantage is that the 4.0L lenses weight a lot less and it easier to carry around. I only use 4.0L


Return to “Wildlife Photography Enthusiasts”