| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2004 12:18:19 AM · #1 |
| I've been saving up for a Canon "luxury" lens. I'm between the Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L($1400) and the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens ($2239). Is the IS worth the extra $$$? |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 12:20:16 AM · #2 |
| holy crap that's a lot of money!!! |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 12:22:14 AM · #3 |
| What makes these lenses so special? Is it just the wide zoom range? |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 12:24:09 AM · #4 |
From what I hear the IS really works and can make a huge change in the sharpeness of your picture. I read a lot about them but am incredibly scared by the price, but if you have that kind of money I say you jump into it.
How long have you been saving up anyway?
|
|
|
|
08/08/2004 12:30:24 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by jwmah:
Is the IS worth the extra $$$? |
Depends on your needs. The IS makes that lens similar to a (f/2.0-3.5, as long as your subject isn't moving), and allows handheld shots at 300mm that mght not otherwise be possible. However, for the $800+ difference you could add a 17-40mm f/4L and a 50mm f/1.8 for more flexibility. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 12:42:17 AM · #6 |
I love my 70-200/2.8L IS! It is my absolute favorite lens to shoot with.
If you do decide to get the 35-350, you may want to get it sooner rather than later. From what I understand, it was one of the two lenses that has been discontinued by Canon for having leaded glass, which Canon stopped manufacturing for environmental reasons. (The other lens is the much sought-after 200/1.8L).
I would say that if you can afford the difference in price, you will not be sorry moving up to the newer 28-300. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 12:42:38 AM · #7 |
| Go for the IS, its soooo worth it. I have it on my 28-135 and it comes in very handy. Im saving for the 70-200L 2.8 IS for my next lens. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 01:01:01 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Ennil:
From what I hear the IS really works and can make a huge change in the sharpeness of your picture... |
IS compensates for camera shake by suspending the elements (the glass) between magnets trimmed to focus. It does not increase sharpness, unless you're standard is a blurred image.
Although sharpness should not be the only criterium when buying a lens -contrast and lack of artifacts may be considered- I understand the same lens without the IS is - sharper.
Message edited by author 2004-08-08 01:03:39.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2004 10:36:11 PM · #9 |
Thanks everyone for the good info.
jwm |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 10:42:25 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Although sharpness should not be the only criterium when buying a lens -contrast and lack of artifacts may be considered- I understand the same lens without the IS is - sharper. |
On my Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 VR (which is the Nikon equivalent of the awesome glass Eddy mentioned), you can turn the IS off if you want. I'd assume the same is true of the Canon.
Mine too is my favourite lens. I love the big aperture at all focal lengths...something you're not likely to find in a 28-300mm lens under about 20 lbs :)
|
|
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: 08/01/2025 12:27:56 PM EDT.
