Just Purchased a New Lens. Worth the Money?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dark, May 3, 2006.

  1. Dark macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #1
    Wow, it seems I havent posted here for quite some time. However my 16th birthday is on Friday and I already spent my birthday money haha. I really have been in the market for a good telephoto lens lately and I finally bought one. I race motocross, so Im always at the races capturing shots. I needed a good lens. It was 650 dollars, and I want to know if I made the right desicion. I can always bring it back so no big deal. Be honest. Thanks alot

    Here it is http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=11922
     
  2. jared_kipe macrumors 68030

    jared_kipe

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #2
    Probably worth it, its the baby L lens after all.
     
  3. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #4
    Is the lens gonna be fast enough for motocross?

    And I don't really know much about shooting things like this, but how well would a long prime lens work? Is it essential to switch focal lengths all the time?
     
  4. Crawn2003 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Location:
    Santa Rosa, California
    #5
    If it's anything like my Nikon 70-300mm it will do "okay" but it's not going to be a 2.8 lens. So I'd say, go out as soon as you can, try it out, and if it doesn't capture exactly what you want see if you can return it for cash or store credit towards a faster lens.

    ~Crawn
     
  5. Subiklim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Location:
    Manhattan, New York
    #6
    To be honest, it's not the lens that I would purchase, but I'm not sure of all the details. Just so long as your happy with it is all that matters, you don't need our approval :cool:

    Happy birthday, nonetheless :D
     
  6. bigbossbmb macrumors 68000

    bigbossbmb

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Location:
    Pasadena/Hollywood
    #7
    I considered this lens, but instead went with the 70-200 f4L...I'm really happy with it. But I've heard good things about the 70-300 IS. I just value build quality and constant f4 over the extra 100mm and IS. Those are really the deciding points for most people.
     
  7. trudd macrumors regular

    trudd

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
    #8
    You spent $650 on the lens itself? Return it and buy from B&H for $560 (then get the $25 mail in rebate)

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=397663&is=USA&addedTroughType=search


    I borrowed my friend's 70-300 IS for a small safari I went on last summer. To be honest, I would have rather had the 70-200 f/4L. The 70-300 is a slow focuser, therefore zone focusing is almost necessary for anything moving toward or away from you. You won't have IS, but if you're shooting in the daylight I wouldn't imagine this being a huge problem. Plus it has higher quality glass, consistent aperture, and the barrel doesn't extend when zooming.

    I've not used the 70-200 f/4L personally, but I have used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, which I imagine is equally as solid as the f/4.

    The 70-200 can be found here for $584 before rebate: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=183198&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
     
  8. Superdrive macrumors 6502a

    Superdrive

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, Tx
    #9
    I've got the 75-300 USM. I will be transitioning to the 70-200 f4 this summer. For about the same price as you paid for your lens, you can get real L glass, where you will notice a difference. I'm not sure about the 70-300, but the 75-300 gets somewhat weak at the extremes. Either way, you should be just fine where you are at. Especially with a Canon. Happy Birthday!
     
  9. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #10
    Yeah, I'd think that a 70-200mm f/4 would be preferrable for myself, personally, but maybe what he has to shoot is very very far away from him, in which case I'd understand.

    THe reason I suggested a prime lens is because there's probably a 200 mm prime lens at f/2.8 that probably costs around $650 anyway (I don't know Canon's lens lineup so well), and f/2.8 would be great. He's probably going to be far away from the action no matter what, so he's not going to need to work at 70 mm too often. He'll be shooting at 200-300 mm. Shooting at 200mm f/2.8 would be perfect.

    Oh, and being able to shoot at 200 mm at f/4 (using the 70-200 mm) is almost as good and gives him flexibility. The 70-300 mm would only let him shoot at f/5.6 at 300 mm, or probably around f/5 at 200mm, which isn't so hot. He has the IS, but his subject is moving, and IS isn't going to help that issue. Only a wider aperture can.
     
  10. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #11
    Heh.... Well, I know nothing about Canon's lineup of lenses but I can tell you that Nikon has the 70-200 VR f/2.8, the 80-200 f/2.8 VR, the 200mm f/4 prime and the outstanding 200mm VR f/2.0......There are also primes and zooms which go to greater lengths beyond this. None of these lenses is inexpensive. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR is around $1600 - $1700 USD and the two primes are more than that. Don't know what the f/4 version of the 200mm is but I can tell you that the 200 f/2.0 is $4000 USD..... With Nikon, one can pick up older lenses from the past, somewhat less expensive lenses which are still of excellent quality, but with Canon that is not always possible due to the change in lens mounts.

    Just brought "Big Bertha" home tonight! Saw and handled the 200mm f/2 at Penn and promptly fell in love. I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I can splurge on something like this, but the aim of this post is to point out that the original poster is probably going to have a hard time finding a really fast prime lens at a modest price point. Again, since I know very little of Canon's lineup I would not attempt to respond to the question of whether or not this is a good lens and whether or not it was a good deal....

    It's important to remember that people are going to be limited by what they can afford and if someone is just starting out, very often they're not going to be able to plunk down the money for the more expensive lenses. There are some nice-quality consumer-grade lenses in the Nikon line and I assume that there are in the Canon line as well....
     
  11. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #12
    For the money, it is a good lens. Don't expect "L" miracles out of it though. I had the predecessor, the 75-300 IS USM. I replaced it with a 100-400L IS USM.

    Much happier, but almost four times poorer.
     
  12. ksz macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #13
    Correction: Nikon's 80-200 f/2.8 is not a VR lens. Nikon's 80-400, on the other hand, is a VR -- it is Nikon's first VR -- but it's an f/4.5-5.6 lens.
     
  13. jared_kipe macrumors 68030

    jared_kipe

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #14
    The 75-300 was WAY worse than the new 70-300 IS. Its an L lens, just not in build quality (no full time manual focus, no distance window, front element rotates when focusing) and not in speed (though there are some f5.6 L lenses). But the sharpness is GREAT.
     
  14. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #15
    Thanks for the correction! Yes, I know the 80-400 is a VR, as I've got one...and yes, it's a painfully slow lens, but with my D200 I kick up the ISO and that helps a lot. I've got the 70-200 VR as well, but don't have and never have used an 80-200mm f/2.8, so that's my bad, as the kids say.... That makes sense that it's not a VR, actually. I'd wondered about Nikon's offering an 80-200 f/2.8 AND a 70-200 f/2.8. That makes sense, then, that the one is a VR and the other is not.... Thanks for catching my error!
     
  15. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #16
    You're right, but generally there are 200 mm prime lenses <$650 price range and are f/2.8.

    I just found out that B&H sells the 70-200 mm f/4L for $545 (after a small rebate), but the 200 mm f/2.8 prime sells for $610, but since you can't change focal lengths, it doesn't offer the flexibility of the zoom lenses.

    Oh, they're also selling the 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens for $535 at B&H, so that $650 seems high, even if you were trying to support a brick and mortar camera store. An awful big price difference there.
     
  16. davegoody macrumors 6502

    davegoody

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire, England
    #17
    Have you seen the 28-300 L ?

    I use the Canon 28-300 f3.5 - f5.6 L IS lens and it is SUPERB

    Very heavy though, but image quality is stunning. I use it for weddings and it saves carrying around 3 lenses (though I use a 10-20mm Sigma for ultra wide). Anyone else seen or used this ? - it is expensive £1700, around $3000 I believe.
     
  17. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #18
    The 70-300mm IS was the first lens I bought with my Digital Rebel XT also.

    AWESOME lens -- happy birthday!
     
  18. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #19
    So, it's a Mercedes, just without the things that make it a Mercedes? :p :D
     
  19. BakedBeans macrumors 68040

    BakedBeans

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    What's Your Favorite Posish
    #20
    :D
     
  20. cgratti macrumors 6502a

    cgratti

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Central Pennsylvania, USA
    #21
    Return it and go with the 70-200 f/4 L from Canon. You will be happy you did! If your using a DSLR with a crop factor that makes it all the better for bringing in the action.

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...198&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

    it's $544, and for about $25 more you can buy the 67mm UV filter for it and still have $$ left over for beer! Oh, your only 16... then you can buy soda!

    or you can save all your birthday money from now until your about 30 yrs old and get this puppy!

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...153&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
     
  21. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #22
    That lens is sweet. And add the 1.4x tele-convertor from Canon, and you have a 98-280 f5.6 zoom lens. Though the word on the street the 70-300IS is no slouch either.

    Also brick and mortar stores like the one I work are are not that far off B&H. After rebates at my store the price is just $45 more. Sure one has to pay sales taxes, but most states require that under their "use tax" laws. Then there maybe shipping charges. And if you don't like it, then there are shipping charges back. And there is the matter of differences between "samples".

    At least at my shop that I work at, you can bring in your camera (or use one of ours) and memory card and do some test shots to come back and decide on which lens you might truly want. We also provide assistance to help customers when rebates don't arrive. We also love seeing the results our customers are getting and offer suggestions as to how to improve their photography.

    The lowest price is not always the answer.
     
  22. cgratti macrumors 6502a

    cgratti

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Central Pennsylvania, USA
    #23
    B&H is NOT the lowest store around, by far. They are one of the most reputable ones around though. I buy everything from B&H because they have great customer service and they have the fastest shipping I know of. If your really into photography you know what the lenses can do and shouldn't have to return it because you dont like it, you may get a bad copy of a lens and have to return it but I have never had that problem.

    B&H is usually a few dollars more then other stores, they have a brick and mortar store in NY but I buy everything online now.
     
  23. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #24
    I think you missed the point of my post. My B&M store is not much more than B&H. And I would like to think we are reputable also. And that other independent B&M stores would not be far off of what the store I work is compared to B&H.

    I would hope that your local shop is not far off of the $45 difference I posted about mine. If they are you could always ask what they might offer to earn your business.
     
  24. cgratti macrumors 6502a

    cgratti

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Central Pennsylvania, USA
    #25
    The problem with most local shops, especially around here is that they hire all teenage kids who know nothing about what they are selling. If I call B&H I get a salesman who knows what they are talking about and will tell me any info I need to know. I am not an expert, but do know enough to operate my equiptment sufficiently.

    I guess I just don't have faith in the smaller stores when it comes to my equiptment and place my faith in B&H. And, $45 is $45.. if I can save $45 I will, even if it means not supporting a local store.
     

Share This Page