| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/11/2004 04:16:51 PM · #1 |
I've been shooting with my 28-135 IS for some time, and while I have been pretty happy with it, I've been wanting more reach. I've had my eye on the Canon 75-300 IS, but after reading a few posts here, I'm worried about its sharpness.
Although the Canon 70-200 lineup sounds nice, and I understand they're great lenses, I'm not ready to plunk down that kind of dough. I mean I'd be afraid to take one outside or breathe on it... :^) Also, I think I'm looking for more reach than 200 would get me.
So, my questions are: If I'm pretty happy with the 28-135 IS, can I expect to be happy with the sharpness of the 75-300 IS? If not, can anyone recommend a tele zoom that will work with my Digital Rebel AF for around $500 that will have good/comparable image quality to the lens I'm used to? |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 04:28:59 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 04:36:33 PM · #3 |
I thought I checked and saw that they were over $1000, but I just checked again, and you're right. A little over budget, but not terrible.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 04:39:24 PM · #4 |
| Definitly the 70-200 f4 L, great value for "L" glass... |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 04:47:18 PM · #5 |
| Holy moly... the tripod mount ring is an additional $100. Do you need it, or can you get by with the camera mount? |
|
|
|
05/11/2004 05:09:04 PM · #6 |
I think it depends on how much you use it on the tripod, and with what camera. Using it without the ring on my 10D feels pretty solid, but with my 300D I kinda feel like the front of the camera is gonna tear off. :-)
I could just be paranoid though. |
|
|
|
05/12/2004 11:43:33 AM · #7 |
| OK. But it only goes to 200. Do you like it with the extenders too? |
|
|
|
05/12/2004 11:57:39 AM · #8 |
I have the 100-400L IS and since I bought it I haven't taken it off my camera.
I also have the 28-135 IS and I never seem to use it.
I do mostly wildlife photos and the 100-400 is awesome for it.
The extra pan IS mode is excellent for birds in flight or thing running by you.
You can pick up a use one on ebay. Thats what I did. Brand new for $980US. |
|
|
|
05/12/2004 12:08:12 PM · #9 |
The quality of the 75-300 is not quite as good as your 28-135 at the long end but I think on par with it at the short end. For the money it is one of your only choices. The IS is nice. The optical quality of the Sigma 70-300mm APO macro super 2 is a little better but no IS. The old discontinued EF 100-300mm f/5.6L has significantly better optical quality but it is a push/pull zoom (if that matters to you), the AF is pretty slow and no IS. You can usually find these used for around $250-300 in good condition. I wouldn't pay more than about $300 for one unless it is like new with all the accessories.
Greg |
|
|
|
05/12/2004 12:17:26 PM · #10 |
| I´ve tryied Tamron 75-300mm (f/4,5-5,6 I think). Maybe it´s not top quality but for my opinon and many others (see photoreview f. inst.) it´s at least better than the Canon 75-300 and cheeper. |
|
|
|
05/12/2004 12:59:31 PM · #11 |
| There was a 75-300 vs. 70-200 debate in this earlier thread. I posted some shots last night from the 70-200, but I don't have a 75-300 for comparison. |
|
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: 09/11/2025 09:57:04 AM EDT.
