canon 70-200 f2.8 is usm ii or canon 70-200 f2.8 usm?
- Thread starter nikerocks
- Start date
oops, ya hor...f5.6 + 2 stops..
Halfmoon
Senior Member
Don't be sad.... life hv to carry on even if bonus is bad. Next year is going to be one tough one... be thankful to have a job and roof over your head.
That is quite sufficient if you are shooting in good light must of the time.
But if you can afford, go for the 18-200 instead of 2 lens setup
nikerocks
New Member
18-200 of canon? How about the sigma one?
I would still stick to canon. You may really want to start reading reviews and make your own decisions.
What is confusing you?
If you go for 18-200, I also rather go for Canon version than Sigma
If you check further, Sigma also has a 18-250 OS HSM, which has longer zoom capability, quiet AF (HSM) and OS (stabilized lens). I rather get this lens than Canon's 18200.
Tamron also has 'similar' offer, a 18-270 (longer zoom than Sigma)
So which one you rather get?
At the tele end.. 50mm is not gonna make or break anything.. I will still take the canon anyway..
nikerocks
New Member
Actually I take photos of birds more so I prefer a longer reach zoom.i was looking at the sigma 50-500 and also planning to get a 17-50 tokina 2.8 for use.but because of budget constraint now, need to get something cheaper for me to use my camera with until I save enough to buy thw above lens.the 18-300 is abit ex considering the fact I dun intend to hold on to the set for long.was looking at sigma 28-300 but seems to have mix review so...quiye unsure. .
I strongly advise you to not buy anything, really.
Looking at all your posts, you don't know what you want, so don't waste money trying to buy something.
Go rent, borrow the said lenses and try them out first before you hand out your money for that lens. The 50-500 sounds good but do factor in the weight issue, and also consider if you really need the 500mm.
Looking at all your posts, you don't know what you want, so don't waste money trying to buy something.
Go rent, borrow the said lenses and try them out first before you hand out your money for that lens. The 50-500 sounds good but do factor in the weight issue, and also consider if you really need the 500mm.
nikerocks
New Member
Thats what I have in mind.just feel strange that I have a camera without lens.i need that extra reach.before hand I was using 70-300 still feel its abit short
if you really on a tight budget and want a good lens for tele, just get the 2.8 non is will do. not enough reach for birding or whatsoever, can always pair up with a teleconverter x1.4, the degrading of IQ wouldnt be so obvious than you think.
hope this helps, just follow your heart. heh.
hope this helps, just follow your heart. heh.
netidolweb
New Member
+1
70-200 f2.8 is usm ii
70-200 f2.8 is usm ii
I owned a Canon 18-200 before, but not sure if this is only my copy or apply to all, I need to go for f8 to get sharp picture at all length
I own a Tamron 18-270, but for my Alpha body. It's also not 'sharp' wide open, but I already get 'sharp' picture at f6.3 down to f8 at 270mm - so, this is not only my choice, it's my purchase.
Never tried Sigma... but the review is quite positive about this lens
When 1st time go to the zoo with DSLR, I used a Canon 18-200, and I feel it's not long enough
Then I comeback several time equipped with a 70-300 (believe or not, I purposely bought a cheapo Sigma 70-300 for zoo shooting)
Now; both lenses are sold, and I'm using my recent Tamron for this kind of shot
So judge yourself if 50mm or 70mm gonna make or break anything (and yes, you still able to crop...)
SilentSeth
New Member
dliem said:
Usually there will some trade-offs on those superzooms. You gain great flexibility in terms of focal length, but you probably lost big aperture and/or sharpness etc.
I think someone should put a sticky on the forums warning people of the perils of asking fellow photographers whether to buy A or B.
Fact: Its not their money - so obviously most will tell you to buy the "best" and "most expensive" one available
Fact: They don't shoot what you shoot or like/want/hope to shoot so most will tell you to buy the "best" and "most expensive" one available (aka cover all possible situations)
Fact: People who recommend the "cheaper" alternatives usually make alot of sense. But you will usually not be convinced until you yourself have bought the "best" and "most expensive" before.
Fact: Gear may be a limitation but the ability to know the limitations of your gear, and how to work around these limitations matters much much more.
Fact: Its not their money - so obviously most will tell you to buy the "best" and "most expensive" one available
Fact: They don't shoot what you shoot or like/want/hope to shoot so most will tell you to buy the "best" and "most expensive" one available (aka cover all possible situations)
Fact: People who recommend the "cheaper" alternatives usually make alot of sense. But you will usually not be convinced until you yourself have bought the "best" and "most expensive" before.
Fact: Gear may be a limitation but the ability to know the limitations of your gear, and how to work around these limitations matters much much more.
