 Michael Bartholomew |
Canon Telephoto Zoom Lens Selection Hey Everyone, I'm looking around at Canon telephoto lenses with a 75-300 range on them. I still haven't received my L series zoom lens yet, but I'm afraid once I use it, I will only want to use L quality glass. What is the quality of images obtained from the normal EF telephoto lenses and how much for a good one. Which one is the best quality for the dollar? What L series lens would meet my needs and how much will it cost? Thanks, Michael
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
If you've ordered one of the L series, why buy another with similar focal range? Once you get it you probably won't use a regular zoom, unless it's a case of using a lighter lens. Side by side comparisons of photos will show a difference, but a 75-300 still is going to give clear pictures when focus is on. You plan on taking snapshots, 75-300 zoom is fine, no need for a 75-200 L. It's a $320 range for one and $1200 range for the other. If you need the f/stops and better glass the L lens offers, then I'd think you'd know based on what you usually shoot.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael Bartholomew |
The lens I will have is the 17-40 f/4L, so I need a mate to cover the rest of the range. Thanks for the information though, its much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael Bartholomew |
What do you think of this lens: Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Little clearer on what you're thinking about. straight telephoto lenses are better than a 75-300 zoom, but it's still a well made lens. You're not going to use one and say all pictures look fuzzy. You have a choice of several straight tele lenses from 100-300, and probably slightly better than a 75-200L because that's just a drawback to zoom lenses. A 200 tele is around $600 maybe, check adorama for their price list. Check canon's website for their line up too, not sure how many non L tele photos are still in their line up. You need a 2.8 lens and don't want to change lenses, 75-200 is a good one. 100-400L is a 5.6 which is good sharpness wise, but slow for low light. You consider yourself serious or on your way to being serious, you're not going to be unhappy by waiting and saving for an L lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
Just throwing something in...I have the Canon 200m 2.8L. I really like it and I think I would like it better if I could turn off my field of view crop because it's a little long for a lot of things. It's got great quality though. You can probably tell which pictures I used this lens for in my premium gallery. There's also a canon 70-200 f4L but isn't the 2.8 of course. The 75-300 USM lens that you listed will probably be ok. I do a lot of stuff with a local photo shop and I'm sure I could bring in my camera and put the lens on it to take a few sample pictures pictures. Then you could see if it'd be good for you. Hope this helps a little too.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael Bartholomew |
Thanks for the input everyone. I'll probably end up saving for the L series. Image quality is growing ever more important to me, and I'm beginning to take my photography more and more seriously as I learn more and expose myself to different equipment. Thanks again for all the advice!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karma Wilson |
Don't discount the Sigma EX 70-200 F2.8 with a matched TC. I have it and it's excellent. Image quality is on par with L-glass. It's one of the best lenses in the Sigma EX line and comes with a quiet HSM motor. Karma
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||