| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2006 11:46:55 AM · #1 |
Well I was in Boston this weekend, and while talking pictures of the Lion at the Franklin Zoo, i dropped my lens from about 12 feet up. Needless to say my long lens (70-300) is no longer with me, RIP. It was a Quantaray lens, but actually took awesome pictures!!!!
So time for a new one... but not sure what to get.....I want to upgrade a little. Looking at the canon 70-200 L but i want something a little longer... I keep hearing that Tameron makes some good telephoto lenses.
Any thoughts? I'm suer there are 500 threads of this sort..... but i just thought i'd ask again. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 11:58:24 AM · #2 |
Sorry for your loss.
What's your budget? What do you want to shoot with it?
You would be hard pressed to beat the 70-200 f4L with 1.4x TC, but that may not work for you.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:00:23 PM · #3 |
Spaz..... ( ha love the name)
Im willing to go up to 700ish..... what would the 1.4 TC do with the lens.?????? |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:03:18 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by brimac:
Spaz..... ( ha love the name)
Im willing to go up to 700ish..... what would the 1.4 TC do with the lens.?????? |
I'd second the Canon 70-200 f/4; you cannot go wrong there. The 1.4x converter would make it a 100-280mm, f/5.6 lens. You'll see very little loss in image quality with the Canon 1.4x converter. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:03:45 PM · #5 |
The 70-210 f4.0L is an awesome lens.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:10:51 PM · #6 |
| I have both the 70-200 f/4L and the 1.4x TC. While they work great, I'd recommend the new Canon 70-300, which is easier to manage & more convenient, cheaper, image-stabilized, and VASTLY superior to the image quality of the Quantaray. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:27:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
The 70-210 f4.0L is an awesome lens. |
Sure is! Use your feet for the other 100mm ;) |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:31:43 PM · #8 |
I'll second this.
Originally posted by scalvert:
I have both the 70-200 f/4L and the 1.4x TC. While they work great, I'd recommend the new Canon 70-300, which is easier to manage & more convenient, cheaper, image-stabilized, and VASTLY superior to the image quality of the Quantaray. |
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:36:40 PM · #9 |
also Brian ... if you know you're not going to use it a ton. I went with the cheapo $200 Sigma 70-300 APO DG. It's sharper than I thought it would be. Focus can hunt a bit though. But for me, knowing I won't be happy until I can get out to at least 400mm - it's a cheap alternative.
Message edited by author 2006-08-16 12:38:35. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:51:41 PM · #10 |
well... if you save up a little longer you can get the sigma 120-300 f/2.8
and let me just say, that lens, is a beast! meaning it is awesome!
-Dan
edit for link
sigma 120-300mm f/2.8
Message edited by author 2006-08-16 12:52:48. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 11:16:39 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by hopper:
also Brian ... if you know you're not going to use it a ton. I went with the cheapo $200 Sigma 70-300 APO DG. It's sharper than I thought it would be. Focus can hunt a bit though. But for me, knowing I won't be happy until I can get out to at least 400mm - it's a cheap alternative. |
Thanks man... I may take your advice. I'm like you, I woould love a longer lens. So many options, I'll let you know. |
|
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: 09/06/2025 11:35:40 PM EDT.
