Which lens to get for rebel xti?

[nismo86]

I have the rebel xti and I'm in the market for a new lens. I'm looking for a lens that will go telephoto between 200-300MM. Looking to spend up to $700. I"m a pretty serious photographer with winning best in show, best in division, 1st and 2ed on every picture I entered in the fair this past summer (07) The lens that came with the camera just isn't working for those shots I need to get in-close anymore. Can someone else me out?

[ChrisBrightwell]

The 70-300mm f/4-5.6mm IS USM sounds like a good fit if you want the 300mm reach.

Otherwise, go for the 70-200/4L and a 1.4x teleconverter.

[robbieduncan]

I'd have thought one of the 70-200L lenses would work very well for you. The f/4 version is very sharp and a little over $500 new...

[nismo86]

These are made by Canon I'm assuming?

[iBlue]

I'd have thought one of the 70-200L lenses would work very well for you. The f/4 version is very sharp and a little over $500 new...
listen to him, I've seen the photos he's taken with that and they're crystal clear and sharp.
These are made by Canon I'm assuming?
yes

[nismo86]

listen to him, I've seen the photos he's taken with that and they're crystal clear and sharp.

yes

Where would I find these lens for sale at a good price from a rep. company?

Something like this be pretty good? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_EF_IS.html

[iBlue]

Not sure about sources but I think you'll get some good advice on that from others here. I think BHphoto is pretty decent, if I recall correctly. :)

[nismo86]

What about the lens I posted? Looks like it can be noisey but I want the best I can get for around $500-600 if possible.

[robbieduncan]

B&H are totally reliable, although the fact they totally shut down (you can't even order on their website) for Jewish holidays can be annoying. They are well respected and I'd recommend shopping with them.

The lens you linked to is OK. It's got a longer reach, and IS which can be handy, but it's a bit slower (especially at the long end). Optically it's not nearly as good as the L lens: the contrast, colour saturation and sharpness of the L are amazing.

[Cave Man]

I have the rebel xti and I'm in the market for a new lens. I'm looking for a lens that will go telephoto between 200-300MM.

What's the intended purpose of the lens?

[OreoCookie]

B&H are totally reliable, although the fact they totally shut down (you can't even order on their website) for Jewish holidays can be annoying.
Aaaah, that's why the close down their online shop every once in a while! I could never figure that one out.

[waveslider]

I too can highly recommend the canon 70-200 f4L

the sharpest canon zoom lens available, and still sharp when used with 1.4x extender.

[nismo86]

I too can highly recommend the canon 70-200 f4L

the sharpest canon zoom lens available, and still sharp when used with 1.4x extender.

Where can I find this lens? I typed it on google with nothing but reviews of it.

[robbieduncan]

:confused: Pretty much anywhere. For example B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/Canon_2578A002_70_200mm_f_4_0L_USM_Autofocus.html)

[nismo86]

I will be using for shooting those far away things that I can't get up close (obviously) and I will be shooting at night time/dusk most of the time.. will this be okay for nightime?

[robbieduncan]

It'll be better at the long end than the other lens you linked to (f/4 as opposed to f/5.6), but not as good as the more expensive 70-200 f/2.8 L.

[nismo86]

Would 70-200L be good in low light? I saw one person said it's not good for low light, is it the same or maybe better then the stock lens that comes with the rebel xti?

[robbieduncan]

Would 70-200L be good in low light? I saw one person said it's not good for low light, is it the same or maybe better then the stock lens that comes with the rebel xti?

It depends on which 70-200L. There are 4 different 70-200L lenses: the 70-200 f/4 L, the 70-200 f/4 L IS, the 70-200 f/2.8 L and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. All offer constant speed across the zoom range (unlike the kit lens or the 70-300 lens you linked to). If low light performance is a must then one of the f/2.8 lenses is the clear winner. Note the 70-300 lens you linked to is f/4 at the wide end and f/5.6 at the long end making it worse in low light than any of the 4 70-200L lenses.

[nismo86]

the 70-200L f4, would that be ok in low light? Basically, I want a lens where I can get some good zoom (200-300) and have it good for low light....

[robbieduncan]

It's acceptable in a lowish light environment (say a dimly lit room like the dance at a wedding reception) if you are willing to run at ISO 1600. Focus is a little hit and miss due to the lack of light. The f/2.8 would be a lot better. If you really want low light performance primes not zooms are the answer. f/1.4 primes work amazingly well in very low light (but are not really available at that sort of length).

Within your kind of budget range is the 200 f/2.8 L (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/129190-USA/Canon_2529A004_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2_8L.html) (not this is not a zoom: it's 200mm or nothing). This would work well in low light situations and should be very sharp.

Edit to add: the attached was taken at a friends wedding with a Rebel XTi and a 70-200 f/4 L. As you can see it was hardly dark but even at ISO 1600 (which this was taken at) this only resulted in a 1/40s shutter speed which when hand-holding a 200mm lens is not really fast enough. I had to brace myself against a wall to keep stable enough to take the picture.

[nismo86]

The only low light I would be doing would be at night, with a tripod.. so I wouldn't need to worry about holding it still, would the 70-200 f4 work fine for this?

[JNB]

To give you an idea of what can be done with the 70-200 f/4L, here's some shots take with my XT the day after I got the lens. Also, for an f/4, it's got a great bokeh in near-macro shots.

[nismo86]

The only low light I would be doing would be at night, with a tripod.. so I wouldn't need to worry about holding it still, would the 70-200 f4 work fine for this?

What you think?

[Hutch98R1]

The 24-70mm 2.8L is the best purchase I have ever made! Get this lens and walk closer to the subject... problem solved!!!!!

Seriously, buy an L lens, you won't regret it. You need to be 2.8 or less for good indoor, no flash. If you are shooting a lot from the same distance, then go for a prime lens like the 200mm. You will always be adding to your collection of lenses.

[Lovesong]

As robbieduncan has very patiently pointed out, there are a number of lenses that will fit the bill for what you're asking. Since you will be using a tripod, I doubt that at the longer focal lengths (that's what it's called, rather than "good zoom") that you're asking about you will not be likely to use anything wider than f/5.6. On a cropped sensor, coupled with a still-undiscerning eye, you will not be able to tell an L from a 75-300.

With L lenses you get better build, awesome optics, and a hefty price tag. Don't get me wrong- I have the 24-70 mentioned above (though this wasn't the question you were asking), and the 70-200 f/2.8. They are both exceptional. For your needs however, even the 70-200 f/4 might be overkill.

[joytime365]

Where would I find these lens for sale at a good price from a rep. company?

Something like this be pretty good? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_EF_IS.html

I think that's quite a good choice, and you can have a look at the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens also, it is the lightest 4x telephoto zoom lens in its class. Ideal for sports,portraiture, animals, etc:
http://www.***************/searchdeals.php?deal_id=72485

[Cave Man]

I think that's quite a good choice, and you can have a look at the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens also, it is the lightest 4x telephoto zoom lens in its class. Ideal for sports,portraiture, animals, etc:
http://www.***************/searchdeals.php?deal_id=72485

That lens is horribly soft.

Until the OP tells us his/her intended uses for the lens, none of us can help him/her.

[nismo86]

That lens is horribly soft.

Until the OP tells us his/her intended uses for the lens, none of us can help him/her.

I stated I'd be using for getting those far away shots, and i'd be shooting at nighttime with a tripod on long exposers (if needed)

[Lovesong]

I think what caveman is going for is an example of what you want to shoot, as in specific... like so:

"I want to shoot the stars"
-Umm, OK, you need a telescope with a EF adaptor, and about $500 worth of tripods

"I want to shoot the moon"
-Right, that means you'll want the 70-300 with a teleconverter on your tripod

"I want to shoot the naked chick across the street"
-Umm, then I would suggest a lens with a wider aperture, as the low light focus hunting will be minimized, and you will be able to get more action shots. A prime would suffice.

"I want to take pictures of the city skyline"
Alright, you don't necessarily need to zoom in on a single skyscraper, so 200mm-equivalent is plenty- pick up a 135, and you're set.
:rolleyes:

[nismo86]

I'm not really sure what i'll be shooting at night because it always changes, but with a tripod and long exposer time will this lens (70-200 f4) do it?

[Lovesong]

I'm not really sure what i'll be shooting at night because it always changes, but with a tripod and long exposer time will this lens (70-200 f4) do it?

Yup- that lens will be the best piece of glass you will ever have had. Be careful, though- once you go L, it becomes a degenerative disease- you'll be trying to sell a kidney soon to get a 300mm prime. Happy shooting ;)

[nismo86]

Yup- that lens will be the best piece of glass you will ever have had. Be careful, though- once you go L, it becomes a degenerative disease- you'll be trying to sell a kidney soon to get a 300mm prime. Happy shooting ;)

LOL... greaaaat.

Yeah i'll be shooting a mix of things at night, stars, trees, cars driving by, houses, fields, etc... I like to play with light and the best time in my eyes is night.

[JFreak]

I'm looking for a lens that will go telephoto between 200-300MM. Looking to spend up to $700.

Are you talking about real millimeters or "full frame equivalent"? I mean, I'm sure you're aware that 200mm tube appears to be 320mm on a 1.6X crop body such as the Rebel. Using same equation a 135mm tube appears as 216mm.

If that's what you're looking for, then I'd recommend Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L or Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L which are very robust and high-quality prime lenses. Very cheap for what you can do with it on a crop sensor body!

[nismo86]

Are you talking about real millimeters or "full frame equivalent"? I mean, I'm sure you're aware that 200mm tube appears to be 320mm on a 1.6X crop body such as the Rebel. Using same equation a 135mm tube appears as 216mm.

If that's what you're looking for, then I'd recommend Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L or Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L which are very robust and high-quality prime lenses. Very cheap for what you can do with it on a crop sensor body!

I want a lens that I can adjust, not just set at "x" amount of mm. It seems whats been recommended will work, as long as in low light it'll still look good, of course using a tripod and long exposer.

[Cave Man]

I stated I'd be using for getting those far away shots, and i'd be shooting at nighttime with a tripod on long exposers (if needed)

What subjects? Are you shooting nocturnal wildlife? Will the subjects be moving or static? These are the things you need to tell us so that we can help you make an informed decision. Details are necessary. Hopefully, you're not shooting into people's windows. :)

[nismo86]

What subjects? Are you shooting nocturnal wildlife? Will the subjects be moving or static? These are the things you need to tell us so that we can help you make an informed decision. Details are necessary. Hopefully, you're not shooting into people's windows. :)

Subjects that are generally not moving, and if they are, they will be blurry on purpose (I.E. a car moving)

[Cave Man]

The lenses in your budget to consider are:

Canon EF 70-200 f/4L USM
Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HSM
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM

If you're working cars, you should probably have an ultra/hypersonic motor. Since you're shooting with a tripod, the IS on the 70-300 is superfluous.

[nismo86]

I have the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens, and it works PERFECT for what i'm doing, if it allowed some more light that would be great. So your saying the 70-200l f4 isn't a good choice and I should go with one of the Ef lenses you listed?

[Cave Man]

So your saying the 70-200l f4 isn't a good choice and I should go with one of the Ef lenses you listed?

I did list the 70-200 f/4L. There are two versions - one with IS (more expensive), one without. If you're using a tripod, there's no need for IS.

[nismo86]

I think i'll try out the 70-200 f4, is there any good ones from 55-200MM for which I need?

[JNB]

Well...

If you get the 70-200, then you want something on the short end. I might suggest:

• EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM ($850-$1200)
• EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ($250-$350)
• EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM ($300-$350)
• Or an equivalent Tamron

The second or third ones in the list both make nice complimentary lenses to the 70-200, and make nice walk-around lenses as well. I think I might lean a teensy bit towards the 28-105, but that's just me. I'd love to have #1 on the list, though (drool!).

No reason to get too much overlap on the lens range, unless a particular lens has superior qualities at a certain focal distance than another. Assuming you don't have an unlimited budget, buy as much glass as you can stand, price-wise, for a given lens. Just don't buy some $99 piece of Phoenix crap just to put something in your bag.

[nismo86]

Say I'm shooting a scenery, or something thats mostly not going to be moving, and say I maybe want to shoot the stars when they move all of this would be done with a tripod on a long exposer, would the non IS ($550 one) 70-200MM f4 work good for me? I'm not asking if it's good for low light without long exposer because if I'm shooting in low light it'll be very long exposers.

[JNB]

Say I'm shooting a scenery, or something thats mostly not going to be moving, and say I maybe want to shoot the stars when they move all of this would be done with a tripod on a long exposer, would the non IS ($550 one) 70-200MM f4 work good for me? I'm not asking if it's good for low light without long exposer because if I'm shooting in low light it'll be very long exposers.

You know, the 50mm 1.8 does terrific starry night shots on a longer exposure, and it's all of about $70 through Amazon.

If you want some really nice astronomical photos, get a decent telescope (for probably less than you'd pay for a good lens) and an adapter for the camera.

Hmm. Just gave myself an idea...

[nismo86]

I'm still wondering, will the 70-200mm f4 be good for nightshots if its on a tripod?

[JNB]

I'm still wondering, will the 70-200mm f4 be good for nightshots if its on a tripod?

Kinda sorta. Perfectly acceptable if the aperture (more open than closed), shutter speed (longer rather than shorter), and ISO (higher rather than lower) are all appropriate for the shot and the lens. But the question remains, what do you consider a "night shot"? Fireworks? Starry skies? Moon reflecting on a lake? Downtown all lit up? A lot of different needs and parameter considerations there. Keep in mind that you may still not get every shot you'd like to. That's why I suggested the 50mm 1.8. It's cheap, way fast for it's cost, nice field of view, and can take "starry night" shots nearly handheld.

BTW, after yesterday's post, I looked into the telescope idea (I wasn't being facetious!), and ordered a Bushnell NorthStar 1250 x 90mm Maksutov-Cassegrain. Granted, I got it with hotel points, but for $50 real money, I can get the adapters necessary to mount the Canon on it. Canon's 1200mm glass is $83,000! (Yeah, I know, but still...) Now we're talkin' night shots!

[nismo86]

A night... hm.. usually means many different things for me. At night I shoot MANY different things, the moon reflecting off a certain object, cars coming at me while I expose the background, a sunset when its barely still light out with the moon out, moon by a bridge. Those type of things. The stock lens that comes with the canon rebel xti is perfect BUT I need more MM. Thats why I was asking if the 70-200 f4 will do the same type of thing as the stock lens does.

[form]

70-200mm f/4l has great reviews. It captures less light than your 18-55 when you're at 18, and more light than when you're at 55.

70-200mm f/2.8l captures more light, but is about $950 used, so out of your price range.

70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS is also a pretty popular lens, with extra reach and a fairly small difference in image quality compared to the 70-200 (which is sharper than the 70-300). This lens captures about the same light as your 18-55.

I am not a Sigma enthusiast, but most people who get their 70-200 f/2.8 EX (around $700) seem happy with it. The reason to consider them over Canon is because they offer a faster aperture (f/2.8) for less money.

Another Sigma model (slightly out of your price range) is the 100-300mm f/4.

These are the lenses in your price range that best fit what you seem to be looking for. If you can find the 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens that's not available in the USA, you might consider that one as well. Since you don't want primes (no zoom), I wouldn't suggest the 200mm f/2.8 (about $500 used) or 135mm f/2 (about $700 used)


For a general idea about lens capabilities, there are several websites to look at, including:

1. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html -
2. http://www.popphoto.com - search for specific lens reviews -
3. http://the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/ -

[nismo86]

edit

[nismo86]

I can't decide between this one :

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-GREY/Canon_2578A002_70_200mm_f_4_0L_USM_Autofocus.html

and this one :

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_EF_IS.html

Now for the use of the lens :

Daytime shots of objects too far to reach, like a barn, just objects I cannot reach. Sometimes I like to get up-close to an object, like a single flower or a piece of wood in-focus with the background out of focus.

Some shots will be at night, such as a sun-set, the different colors after the sun goes down, objects in some-what low light, a bridge with the moon in the background, a fence with the stars in the background.

The shots in the day will be non-tripod for the most part, the ones at night will be on a tripod with long exposer.

Which would best fit this? Or would something else fit me? I do want a lens where with a high MM as the current lens I have only goes to 55MM.

Please help..

[nismo86]

Anyone?

[ChrisBrightwell]

The 70-200 is an absolutely superb lens. Its contrast, sharpness, and resolution will all beat the 70-300 99% of the time. It has a constant f/4 aperture, great build quality, and no extension when it zooms or focuses. It white in color, which attracts a lot of attention, both from thieves and other shutterbugs.

The 70-300 reaches 100mm further, but gives up some image quality in the process. It's a touch slower, but IS makes up for that if you're capturing a relatively still scene. The 70-300 @ 200mm has a max aperture of f/5.0, which is 2/3 of a stop slower than f/4. It's a more inconspicuous color (black), which may be a plus for you.

It basically boils down to whether or not you need the extra 100mm of reach, need the IS, or want a lens that won't attract a lot of attention.

[nismo86]

Now without the IS, do I have to use a tripod or can I not use a tripod? The only time i'd be using without a tripod would be in the daytime with light.

[JNB]

Now without the IS, do I have to use a tripod or can I not use a tripod? The only time i'd be using without a tripod would be in the daytime with light.

You shouldn't require a tripod unless you're at the outer limits of the focal range, using a slow shutter, or some combination that will allow your body motion to be recorded in the shot. Or if you're drunk, in which case it's best not to even pick the thing up. Pretty much anytime you can get a shutter speed above 1/60 or so (which will include 100% of your daytime shots if you let the camera autoselect the appropriate speed), you shouldn't notice much, if any, jitter. Play with it in different settings, find out what your "steady" range is handheld.

One thing to remember about tripods - if you're going to get one, don't cheap out on something that a breeze will knock over. You don't need to spend several hundred dollars, but you should plan on more than twenty. It needs to support the weight of everything withour drooping or shaking on it's own, and provide a stable base.

Another thought. With the 70-200 f/4, one reason it's so affordable (a relative concept, if there ever was one) is they do NOT include a lens collar. Canon's price for one is about $150. You can get one from eBay here (http://search.stores.ebay.com/Link-Delight-Links-World_canon-lens-collar_W0QQftsZ1QQsaselZ235489574QQsatitleZcanonQ20lensQ20collarQQsofpZ0) for around $40 plus shipping (eBay Store Link Delight. They're really OK. Just search for Canon 70-200 lens collar). I just did recently, and it's great. Compared to the OEM unit, I can't discern any difference.

[FX120]

Spend a little more and either get the 70-200 f4L IS or get the 2.8L

While the 70-200 f4L is a nice piece of glass, I have found it a little slow for anything other than day scenery unless you're on a tripod.

L glass all the way.

[JNB]

Spend a little more and either get the 70-200 f4L IS or get the 2.8L

While the 70-200 f4L is a nice piece of glass, I have found it a little slow for anything other than day scenery unless you're on a tripod.

L glass all the way.

A little? 70-200 L glass prices (approximate, but you get the idea)

f/4: $550
f/4 IS: $1000
f/2.8: $1150
f/2.8 IS: $1600

I agree on the desirability of the faster and/or stabilized lenses, but sometimes the budget doesn't allow for it. :D

[nismo86]

Alright, You guys got me set on this lens.

Just double checking, this is the one? And the best price around?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/Canon_2578A002_70_200mm_f_4_0L_USM_Autofocus.html

Should I get this too?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186974-REG/Canon_2665A004_ET_74_Lens_Hood.html

[Kamera RAWr]

Alright, You guys got me set on this lens.

Just double checking, this is the one? And the best price around?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/Canon_2578A002_70_200mm_f_4_0L_USM_Autofocus.html

Should I get this too?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186974-REG/Canon_2665A004_ET_74_Lens_Hood.html

The lens comes with the hood ;)

[robbieduncan]

The lens comes with the hood ;)

And, if it's like mine, a little grey felt bag with a fake leather bottom to keep it in.

[nismo86]

So that is the correct lens right? Will fit the rebel xti?

[robbieduncan]

So that is the correct lens right? Will fit the rebel xti?

All EF (including EF-S) mount lenses will fit and work on an XTi. And yes, that is the correct lens.

[nismo86]

My last question, whats the huge difference in the IS and this one? Why need it?

[robbieduncan]

My last question, whats the huge difference in the IS and this one? Why need it?

The IS one has IS. That's it. If you are shooting a lot of handheld stuff and the targets are not moving (or perhaps if you are panning) then IS can be helpful, otherwise it's just extra weight to carry. If you are shooting off a tripod then you don't need IS.

[nismo86]

Thanks for all the info, I'm going to buy this lens!

[nismo86]

Is this a legit place to order from?

http://www.quest4cameras.com/viewproduct.aspx?ID=3144735&l=Froogle

Any better deals from a legit place?

[JNB]

Is this a legit place to order from?

http://www.quest4cameras.com/viewproduct.aspx?ID=3144735&l=Froogle

Any better deals from a legit place?

WHOIS returns an interesting tidbit on the website:
Updated Date: 01-may-2007
Creation Date: 01-may-2007
Expiration Date: 01-may-2010

Yet they claim 29 years experience bringing the best prices. Too busy to get on the web? Customer Service phone numbers have also been in use for quite a while for Brooklyn storefront operations. Ick. Walk away...

B&H, Cameta, Adorama have all been recommended by other forum members. If you purchase through Amazon that will likely return one or more of those as the merchant. The "best price" is rarely really that. Pay a few bucks more, in the range that most vendors are charging. The guy that undercuts everyone generally is up to no good in this business.

If you get an email from a vendor telling you to contact them about your order, watch out. Just call them and IMMEDIATELY cancel the order.

[nismo86]

Yeah I didn't think the site was very legit, so I went a different way.

I'm getting as a x-mas present and I gave the amazon and B&H link.

[jlcharles]

I own the 70-200 f/2.8L and it came with a tripod collar. I don't know how heavy this particular lens is and whether you need it, but you may consider buying the collar as well.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/478561-REG/Canon_1694B001_Tripod_Mount_Ring_A_2.html

I'm sure someone that has/does own this lens can chime in on this.

[JNB]

I own the 70-200 f/2.8L and it came with a tripod collar. I don't know how heavy this particular lens is and whether you need it, but you may consider buying the collar as well.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/478561-REG/Canon_1694B001_Tripod_Mount_Ring_A_2.html

I'm sure someone that has/does own this lens can chime in on this.

From my previous post on this...

Another thought. With the 70-200 f/4, one reason it's so affordable (a relative concept, if there ever was one) is they do NOT include a lens collar. Canon's price for one is about $150. You can get one from eBay here (http://search.stores.ebay.com/Link-Delight-Links-World_canon-lens-collar_W0QQftsZ1QQsaselZ235489574QQsatitleZcanonQ20lensQ20collarQQsofpZ0) for around $40 plus shipping (eBay Store Link Delight. They're really OK). I just did recently, and it's great. Compared to the OEM unit, I can't discern any difference.

[robbieduncan]

I'm not convinced you need the collar. The lens is pretty light so you can probably survive without it.

[jlcharles]

Sorry, I missed that.

[ChrisBrightwell]

I'm not convinced you need the collar. The lens is pretty light so you can probably survive without it.

If you have a sturdy tripod, this is probably true. I still would be nervous about that much torque on the lens mount, though.

[JNB]

If you have a sturdy tripod, this is probably true. I still would be nervous about that much torque on the lens mount, though.

About 1.5 pounds cantilevered well ahead of the mount point without the collar. Plus, with the 1.4x Extender in my case, even more hanging out there. A fair amount of torque against the tripod head too, excessive if you use a $30 Velbon or something like that. The 40 bucks I spent on the ring is good piece of mind.

[nismo86]

I can't find the canon lens mount on ebay, I followed your link but nothing came up.

[waveslider]

I'd try it without the mount first,

I don't have one on mine and I've never felt the need for one and I sometimes use it with a 1.4x extender.

You will not be disappointed with this lens

[JFreak]

I'd try it without the mount first

Yep; the left hand would always be on zoom ring anyway, thus making the lens rest on your hand nicely.

[FX120]

A little? 70-200 L glass prices (approximate, but you get the idea)

f/4: $550
f/4 IS: $1000
f/2.8: $1150
f/2.8 IS: $1600

I agree on the desirability of the faster and/or stabilized lenses, but sometimes the budget doesn't allow for it. :D

When I finally bought my 70-200 f2.8 I think I paid about $800 used but in "like new" condition off of eBay.

While I kept my original 70-200 f4, I saved up for a few months to get the faster glass and in the long run I am really glad I did.

[Kamera RAWr]

Is this a legit place to order from?

http://www.quest4cameras.com/viewproduct.aspx?ID=3144735&l=Froogle

Any better deals from a legit place?

Eeekk.. bad news there! Easy to spot scammers. Notice how the accessories don't specify brand. :p