A&P Sold my Lens today!

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Ballast, Mar 31, 2004.

  1. Ballast

    Ballast Cold Heartless Bastard

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2001
    Messages:
    7,485
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    London, Ontario
    :wiggle:

    One of the local Subaru guys has agreed to buy my cheap Sigma DL 70-300mm lens. I got my tax return today, and tomorrow I'm going to get the Canon 100-300mm USM lens. It was a toss up between that one and the 75-300mm IS USM lens...

    But the 75-300mm IS USM uses the same glass as the 75-300mm III USM lens, but the IS one is like 2.3 times as much money... I don't want to get a really steady lens that takes shitty pics. So I decided on getting the lens with better glass and no IS...



    and yes, I know you all feel I should have bought the 70-200mm L f4... but i'm not looking at spending that kind of cash...
     
  2. bioyuki

    bioyuki Ich habe Angst

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    54,454
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Take my advice and buy the 70-200L f/4...otherewise you're just going to use a cheaper lens for another year, lose money when you sell it and then end up buying the 70-200L anyways.

    Everyone ends up upgrading anyways so might as well buy it and use it from the beginning. IE I sold my 70-300ED for a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and now I'm really tempted to buy the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR. Ditto with my Sigma 28-80 that I sold for a Nikon 24-85 and now I'm looking to buy a Nikon 17-55 DX.

    The 70-200L f/4 is only like 580, you can probably find it used in very good condition for a lot cheaper, it'll make a world of difference, trust me.
     
  3. NauticaX

    NauticaX OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    4,418
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Maryland
    Yea.. first lens I got with my D100 was the 24-85.. but I think I made a okay choice since no way could I afford a 28-70 at the same time I purchased the D100 for $2K.. now I'm going to sell my 24-85 most likely since I got the 17-55. So in other words I would save up for the 70-200 f/4.0L lens just like what bioyuki says.
     
  4. bioyuki

    bioyuki Ich habe Angst

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    54,454
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    You got a 17-55...you bastard :o

    Pics of the lens? I want so bad...I think I could probably get one for 1.3k once the initial rush is over :hs:
     
  5. NauticaX

    NauticaX OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    4,418
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Maryland
    I actually got the lens for $1200 last week. Got lucky I guess :)
    I dont really have much shots with it since haven't had much time but here are a few I took over the weekend.. don't know if these samples will do you any good since they are resized

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Tex

    Tex Now with avatar™

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I'm currently saving for the 70-200 f/4L myself. I've done some reading up, and after speaking to the photographer at work have decided that's definitely the least I'll settle for. I can't justify the f/2.8L for what I do (I'm not making money from my pics, nor do I intend to), and the f/4L sounds great from everything I've read...

    I agree with bioyuki, you will be wanting more down the track, it's as close to inevitable as anything could be... Save yourself the hassle and save for a bit longer, and know you're getting an AWESOME lens.

    My 2c!
     
  7. Ekliptix

    Ekliptix New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Messages:
    20,506
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cowgary
    I ♥ my 70-200F4/L
     
  8. Ballast

    Ballast Cold Heartless Bastard

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2001
    Messages:
    7,485
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    London, Ontario
    guys, i'm not looking at spending that kind of money... especially because I want a lens that goes to 300mm... so i'd also be looking at getting a teleconverter....
     
  9. Vilnius

    Vilnius Bruised, battered, and scarred but hard. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    16,209
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    Toronto
    Come on you know you want it.

    :naughty:
    [​IMG]
     
  10. bioyuki

    bioyuki Ich habe Angst

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    54,454
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Most 70-300s perform like shit past 200mm so you'd have to stop down to f/8 at least to get decent performance and a 300mm f/8 lens is useless so you might as well buy a 70-200 f/4.

    The difference between 200mm and 300mm isn't all that great, I honestly don't have any issues with zoom reach from switching from a 70-300 to a 70-200.
     
  11. Jazz

    Jazz Powerhouse of the Scrum

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,326
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
  12. Ballast

    Ballast Cold Heartless Bastard

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2001
    Messages:
    7,485
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    London, Ontario
    why is a 300mm f/8 lens useless?? All I really shoot is motorsports... I have no interest in using this lens indoors... and i'm not really into nature photography.

    I need the 300mm reach to get shots at the far end of the track/lot that i can't get with a shorter lens, and can't move in closer becasue of safety concerns...
     
  13. Tex

    Tex Now with avatar™

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ballast, what sort of cam are you using? Is it a DSLR? If so, don't forget to factor in of course that a 200mm lens becomes a ~320mm lens (on the 300D or 10D for example) due to the 1.6x multiplier...

    Anyway, whatever you get, good luck with it, but I know what I'd be doing! Even though you can't see yourself needing the ability to shoot at 300mm at less than f/8, having that luxury will give you a lot more flexibility... :)
     
  14. bioyuki

    bioyuki Ich habe Angst

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    54,454
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
  15. Ballast

    Ballast Cold Heartless Bastard

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2001
    Messages:
    7,485
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    London, Ontario
    Yes, I'm using a Rebel. Yes, I know about the crop factor.

    I just sold me 70-300mm Sigma POS... And it did take decent enough pics, but I want something a little better. And there were some shots that I was only able to get in the 250-300mm region of the camera, because we had to stand so far back at the track (because of safety and terrain).


    And now you bastards actually have me thinking about getting the 70-200L f/4 with a 2xTC.... bastards, all of you!
     
  16. Tex

    Tex Now with avatar™

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Hahaha, sorry man - but deep down, you know you want it. It'll take you longer to get, sure, but the results will be much more rewarding. And of course, the lenses will carry over to whatever you buy next, so out of everything, I reckon lenses are one thing not to be skimped on...

    Let us know what you decide. I've hopefully got a second hand 70-200 f/4L lined up that's been used maybe 5 times for about 500 bucks under new price here, so I'm curbing expenditure elsewhere to save for that now. :)
     
  17. Vilnius

    Vilnius Bruised, battered, and scarred but hard. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    16,209
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    Toronto
    I don't think the Rebel will AF with 2x attached to the 70-200 f/4. Stick with the 1.4, it's much better optically anyways.

    V
     
  18. Jazz

    Jazz Powerhouse of the Scrum

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,326
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Anything bought south of the border is grey market for us canadians :o
     
  19. bioyuki

    bioyuki Ich habe Angst

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    54,454
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    I don't think any AF system works past f/5.6 :dunno:
     
  20. bioyuki

    bioyuki Ich habe Angst

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    54,454
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
  21. Vilnius

    Vilnius Bruised, battered, and scarred but hard. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    16,209
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    Toronto
    Canon's 1 Series (and I think the 3 series as well) will AF to f/8.
     
  22. Tex

    Tex Now with avatar™

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    What are you guys talking about exactly? I'm not following re: AF not working past f/x... ?
     
  23. Ballast

    Ballast Cold Heartless Bastard

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2001
    Messages:
    7,485
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    London, Ontario
    The AF system in most cameras needs at least as much like as f/5.6 gives you to function properly. Companies design their AF systems to work... not work somewhat...

    so when there isn't enough light to focus properly, the AF system just shuts off
     
  24. Tex

    Tex Now with avatar™

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Weird... I've never experienced that happening before.. :confused:
     
  25. bosox

    bosox *

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Messages:
    838
    Likes Received:
    0
    70-200 F4/L pics :)

    full pic--resized only, straight from camera:
    [​IMG]

    same pic, 100% crop, straight from camera:
    [​IMG]

    100% crop, shadow/highlight adjustment:
    [​IMG]

    this lens is :bigthumb:
     

Share This Page