| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2005 12:11:50 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by phinbob:
Originally posted by deapee:
They're garbage lenses...both of them. |
Ok...so they're garbage lenses. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was looking for advice, not to be blown off with some snide remark.
Thanks for for your gracious and kind consideration. |
The Canon is the better lens of the two, I'd say. However, why aren't you happy with it? That will go a long ways towards picking another lens.
Sidenote - I wish we could put users on ignore like we can threads.
M |
Well...I'm sorry for sharing my opinion. And I'm sorry that you don't agree. You are more than welcome to respectfully go against it or add your remark.
You're also very much so more than welcome to simply not read any of my posts. If you see my name, just skip right on past it.
edit: the thing is...when people want to buy something cheap, it's pointless, and that's my opinion. Here's someone with a two-thousand dollar camera -- wanting to buy a two hundred dollar lens. In my opinion, he'd be better off with a nine hundred dollar camera, and a fifteen hundred dollar lens. |
You should of stated that in the first place. Making a statement without reference you just come off as arrogant. Don't take this the wrong way but you tend to do that whenever you post.
You have every right to state your opinion however when someone is asking for advice reasons behind opinion generally carry more weight.
Just MY opinion.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 12:43:20 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by phinbob:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by deapee:
he'd be better off with a nine hundred dollar camera, and a fifteen hundred dollar lens. |
That I would agree with 100%. If you are going to spend the kind of money you did on the body you have why would you want to put a variable max aperture do everything lens on it? |
OK..Look...I'm sorry I even brought this up. I'm beginning to be sorry that I even joined DPChallenge. When I did join, I didn't think it was populated by people who looked down on anyone that used a non professional piece of equipment. I never said this was my ONLY lens. It's simply a lightweight and comapct option that I'm not too happy with. I asked for opinions and actually got some good advice and opinions. For that I am thankful. What irritates the hell out of me are the few who seem to think everyone will buy an L class lens. Those are the bigots who will never understand what it means to actually take the time to help someone. Rather than trying to help, you come across as condescending.
Let's just close this thread and I'll promise to never ask that question again. I'll go elsewhere for my information. To those that have offered advice (yido, brianh, nico_blue), I thank you. |
You just stated you didn't like the lens, but when someone agrees with you that it's not a great lens you get all bent out of shape.
I wasn't picking on that particular lens, but you said you weren't happy with it. The main drawbacks to the lens you dislike are not there because they are or are not made by Canon or because they are or are not L glas. They are there because any time you combine a wide range zoom with a variable aperture lens you will have a lens that not only changes focus as you zoom, but also hunts to some degree in AF.
I will agree with you on one point - if you don't want oppinions that you would rather not hear don't ask.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 08:04:43 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Deapee... You should never forget the old adage that says: " no good deed goes unpunished".
You tried dude, but it would seem that your efforts were totally misunderstood. I do hope this will not stop you from continuing to dispense information to persons like myself.
Ray |
Thanks Ray (and Colette) -- I would never stop offering my opinions -- I'm much too opinionated to stop that hahaha. It's cool though...i was a bit harsh, as I admitted earlier, but I thought that was going to be enough -- didn't realize he wanted someone to go further on the topic about either why we didn't like them or what we thought was better, etc.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 10:10:43 AM · #29 |
I kind of like my garbage sigma 70-300 :)
but i will get the canon 70-200 f4 when money permits.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 10:12:24 AM · #30 |
"Type : Prime"
Bit of an error there?
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 10:14:04 AM · #31 |
I think the question is: "Is it better to have some image taken with a cheap lens, or no image at all?"
If someone wants to buy an inexpensive lens, fine, but they shouldn't be berated for it. Some of the folks on here display about as much tact and finesse in their posting as an angry bull and seem quite proud of it as well.
Personally, I'd save my money and for a few extra bucks over cost of the 75-300 IS get the 70-200 f4 and be damn happy about it. To me, that one stop is not worth $550 more dollars and the wait associated with saving the cash and that one stop + IS is not worth another $500 on top of that. Maybe someday it will be, but today is not that day.
As far as the 85 f1.8 goes, it's a damn fine lens, nice bokeh, sharp, all that. No, it's not the equal of the 85 f1.2, but it's 1/4 the price and a steal at that.
Message edited by author 2005-08-11 10:20:47.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 10:19:23 AM · #32 |
Firstly, the IS 75-300 is very poor value. Let's compare the Sigma 70-300 macro (which is significantly cheaper) to the 70-200/4L.
70-200/4L
+ Nice quality
+ Fast(er) aperture
+ Fast focus
+ Durable
- It's heavy
- It's expensive
- Needs a 1.4x TC to get to 280mm
70-300/4-5.6
+ Zoomy
+ Macro capability
+ Light
- Soft, esp. at long range
- Poorer build quality
My point is that, yes, the 70-200/4L is the 'better' lens, but both have pros and cons.
In a recent business trip I took my 300D with my 75-300, NOT my 70-200/2.8L. Why? Simple, it's just too damn big and heavy.
Message edited by author 2005-08-11 10:20:07.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 11:35:16 AM · #33 |
Phinbob,
You got a lot of great advice free of charge in this thread. Look at the positive.
Also, I don't think anyone said anything offending. Had you stated you were looking for a more compact lens, you would have been given different answers. People gave you their opinion on your best options and there is nothing wrong with that.
Yes, these are garbage lens compared to the 70-200 f2.8 and if you spend $1500 on a camera it is silly to put a garbage lens on it, unless you have good reason (such as size and weight).
However, these lens are clearly capable of taking great photos. You just need to work a little harder and know their limitations.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 11:36:44 AM · #34 |
| Side note: the 75-300 has IS, which is incredibly helpful for handholding, especially if you're trying to get more depth of field (which can be quite a problem at the long end). I think I'm about to replace it with a Sigma 80-400 OS for the majority of my telephoto work, but it would remain my lens of choice for long outdoor hikes because of the weight. If I ever get rid of it completely, it will be after I have a good ZLR like the Panaosonic FZ-30 (assuming it holds up to my expectations) to go ultralight on long trips, and the 70-300 DO IS, which I'd want as a stealth telephoto for places where people get snippy when they see high-end gear. |
|
|
|
08/12/2005 09:06:21 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by nico_blue:
Originally posted by deapee:
edit: the thing is...when people want to buy something cheap, it's pointless, and that's my opinion. Here's someone with a two-thousand dollar camera -- wanting to buy a two hundred dollar lens. In my opinion, he'd be better off with a nine hundred dollar camera, and a fifteen hundred dollar lens. |
deapee's position on some issues that dpc-ers face:
stock - for it, likes alamy
microstock - against it, especially shutterstock and istock
quality equipment - the more expensive the better
cheap lenses - "they're garbage"
:-) |
now you got it!
seriously though...that 70-300 IS USM is $499 new...a nice, lightly used 70-200 f/4L can be had for $500 -- less if you're a good shopper.
Maybe I should have said that in the beginning...but in all seriousness, I was just sharing my opinion...no need to get defensive guys, seriously....as much as I seem like a troll, I'm not...I just don't think much before I say stuff sometimes. |
Only sometimes? :)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/02/2025 07:10:42 AM EDT.
