| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2007 10:05:49 AM · #1 |
What do you all think of this lens compared to the canon 70-200mm/2.8?
i found one used for $675 and i wonder if i should pick it up now. from the reviews ive read the quality is the same as the canon lens....
yay or nay?
|
|
|
|
11/07/2007 01:09:08 PM · #2 |
That lens was my original 70-200 lens. I had it for nearly a year and loved it. It was fairly sharp at 2.8, but not all of them are. Do some testing with it if possible before you buy it. The reason I went with the canon NON IS model over it, was low light focusing was better with the canon, and the focus speed was also faster. I had both and tested them at the same time doing a direct comparison. I think when I sold mine the 70-200 DG/Macro had just come out and I got like $700 for mine, so I think the price might be a touch high. But thats all relative, gear is worth what someone is willing to give for it at that given time.
MattO
|
|
|
|
11/07/2007 02:30:28 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by MattO:
That lens was my original 70-200 lens. I had it for nearly a year and loved it. It was fairly sharp at 2.8, but not all of them are. Do some testing with it if possible before you buy it. The reason I went with the canon NON IS model over it, was low light focusing was better with the canon, and the focus speed was also faster. I had both and tested them at the same time doing a direct comparison. I think when I sold mine the 70-200 DG/Macro had just come out and I got like $700 for mine, so I think the price might be a touch high. But thats all relative, gear is worth what someone is willing to give for it at that given time.
MattO |
yeah this price is also Canadian, our prices are always quite a bit higher :-(.
right now to get the macro version new its $1150(give or take 50 bucks)CDN and my friend is selling his for $800. I don't know which one i should go for... do you think the closer focusing distance is worth the extra $125 (the focusing distance is 100cm instead of 180cm) |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 11:48:38 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 12:38:15 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by noisemaker:
Originally posted by MattO:
That lens was my original 70-200 lens. I had it for nearly a year and loved it. It was fairly sharp at 2.8, but not all of them are. Do some testing with it if possible before you buy it. The reason I went with the canon NON IS model over it, was low light focusing was better with the canon, and the focus speed was also faster. I had both and tested them at the same time doing a direct comparison. I think when I sold mine the 70-200 DG/Macro had just come out and I got like $700 for mine, so I think the price might be a touch high. But thats all relative, gear is worth what someone is willing to give for it at that given time.
MattO |
yeah this price is also Canadian, our prices are always quite a bit higher :-(.
right now to get the macro version new its $1150(give or take 50 bucks)CDN and my friend is selling his for $800. I don't know which one i should go for... do you think the closer focusing distance is worth the extra $125 (the focusing distance is 100cm instead of 180cm) |
Sorry didnt see your reply until just now. I didnt really use the lens for Macro's anyway. I did use an extension tube, which can be bought and make up the close focusing distance issue and still have spent less money. Personally I think the DG non macro would be fine. I know mine was until I pushed it past what it was capable of, then I went with the canon.
MattO
|
|
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: 12/30/2025 01:32:04 PM EST.
