Skip to Content

Canon Lenses

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment
User avatar
Muhammad
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 2105
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:33 pm

Canon Lenses

Unread post by 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.

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 14520
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Unread post by 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.
Not posting much here anymore, but the photo's you can follow here There is plenty there.

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: 14292
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread post by 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: 2105
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:33 pm

Unread post by 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

User avatar
Jay
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 884
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:10 pm
Location: Golden Mile,West Coast, CFG

Unread post by 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: 14292
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread post by 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: 165
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 post by 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: 14520
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 post by 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....}
Not posting much here anymore, but the photo's you can follow here There is plenty there.

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: 165
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: From East London S.A., but living in Surrey, UK

Unread post by 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: 14292
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread post by 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: 14520
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Unread post by 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.
Not posting much here anymore, but the photo's you can follow here There is plenty there.

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: 578
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:41 am
Location: The country of compromises

Unread post by 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: 161
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:24 am
Location: Kempton Park

Unread post by 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: 163
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:46 pm
Location: In the studio for now

Unread post by 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: 14292
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread post by 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”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Webcam Highlights

Addo
Submitted by Anonymous at 15:16:43
orpen
Submitted by Dibles at 13:04:00
satara
Submitted by vacation at 11:14:00
nossob
Submitted by Mayday at 16:50:00