Value for Money items for EOS owners
- Thread starter trucatus
- Start date
- Status
The f4 of course~!HydroPoP said:135L f2 and 70-200L f4 and 70-300 4-5.6 IS all cost around the same price. Which do u think is the best buy for a longer reach lens than the kit lens? Thanks!
Compared to 135L: 70-200 is a zoom, more versatile
Compared to 70-300: 70-200's IQ is much better
And it's the onli white lens out of the three
(ok, this is a lame reason... haha...)HydroPoP said:135L f2 and 70-200L f4 and 70-300 4-5.6 IS all cost around the same price. Which do u think is the best buy for a longer reach lens than the kit lens? Thanks!
I'm actually selling a 135mm f/2 on B&S now, so I may not be qualified to give an opinion. That said, here's my two cents worth, and you can take it with a pinch of salt if you wish.
imouyang is definitely right in saying that the 70-200mm f/4 is a great lens. It is perhaps the best 'balance' amongst the three choices you listed. But your choice will depend on your uses. A max aperture of f/4 means that it will primarily be an outdoor lens. Compare this to the 135mm f/2 which is a whole two stops faster and definitely works well in low-light applications.
So if you like to photograph indoor sports, stage productions, seminars and the like indoors, the 135mm f/2 might fit the bill for you. Another popular lens for such applications is the much cheaper 85mm f/1.8. Don't forget about that too.
That being said, if you photograph outdoors and love zoo/ wildlife photography, both the 135mm and the 70-200mm take very well to a 1.4X TC. The TC can be used to extend the 'reach' of your master lenses and get you a more frame-filling photo.
fWord said:
Agree... The f2 does make a difference in low light scenerio and the 135 f2 is useful for such applications(the 70-200 f2.8 is also v good but too ex)... And the 135mm f2 is one of the sharpest lens in the whole Canon EF lens lineup
Hope you sell ur superb lens soon~!
imouyang said:Agree... The f2 does make a difference in low light scenerio and the 135 f2 is useful for such applications(the 70-200 f2.8 is also v good but too ex)... And the 135mm f2 is one of the sharpest lens in the whole Canon EF lens lineup
Hope you sell ur superb lens soon~!
Thanks. Just sold today to another CSer who is now very fortunate indeed to get such a new copy at a good price. I enjoyed the sharpness of the lens too and found it produced great resolution even wide open with all the dreamy bokeh. Add a 1.4X TC and it pushes the magnification to 0.27X, nice for close-up shots.
Pity the focal length isn't right for me. If I were more into street or event shooting, it'd be very useful. But at the zoo I think it'll hardly be adequate for quite a few subjects, even with a TC.
imouyang said:
Then you are more blessed than I am. Personally, I feel the urge to shoot everything from wide to tele. Initially I wanted an ultra-wide lens but gave up the idea in the end. I sought to keep things simple and just got a 17-85mm to upgrade my kit lens.
At the zoo, longer lenses will really give you the tight framing on most animals, if so desired. Personally I use focal lengths in excess of 300mm, and that's even on a 1.6X crop camera. That works out to the FOV of almost a 500mm lens. But styles will vary. For many, a 70-300mm lens will suffice.
HydroPoP said:Went to try out the 135 f2 and the 70-200 f4. I was impressed by the very nice sharpness and bokeh of the 135f2. So bought it for $1350....could have bought yours if i saw it earlier
But nevermind it is a very nice lens for me
It's a very nice lens no doubt, assuming the focal length is right for you. I realized that I stink at people photography, so it made no sense to keep the lens and continue doing street...might as well get back to zoo stuff, which is what I've enjoyed most.
In my opinion I sold the lens for under what it was worth...went for $1050 with the B+W filter. Not to mention it was in excellent condition, and a reasonably new copy. It amazed me that I could get fairly fast shutter speeds wide open (approx 1/200s) in an indoor situation at just ISO 400.
Pinoy said:<shameless plug>
See my sig. Just in case you guys are interested.
</shameless plug>
:Later,
Ohh...the 70-200mm f/4L is a great value-for-money lens in itself, as many others have stated. Used it before and it delivered very well for what it cost. It's a baby L but impresses nevertheless. I was even more impressed after seeing some tests that were done at another forum, showing how it actually performed better under some circumstances with a 1.4X TC than when compared to the 300mm f/4 IS @ f/5.6.
Fortunately (or unfortunately), this lens seems to sell for below what it's really worth at the forums. A great buy.
There's been a 200mm f/2.8L floating around the forums lately, and I've read some opinions that this is a great choice too if you primarily use the 200mm end of a 70-200mm zoom.
canongrapherL
New Member
hehe, though I am not a good photographer, i am those who love trying stuffs and evaluating them being an engineer by profession.
I have owned or have loaned many many lenses. The EF 24 - 85 f3.5-4.5 is a very nice and underrated lens. Having owned 3 copies of the 24-85mm before and have compared them to the 28-105 and 28-135IS which I have also owned previously. I will say that the 24-85mm has generally better contrast and sharpness than the 2 brothers. Ok, it is not better by a large margin but the advantage is still fairly visible. Of course the disadvantage is its shorter focal length but it is wider though at 24mm! OK, it certainly isnt as sharp as the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which I have also owned but the color is better than the Tamron in my humble opinion.
Wont elaborate how my opinions on these lenses are formed based on the different tests I have done but I will go on to say that there are actually no bad lenses here! Given that these lenses are quite affordable, you cant really fault them. True these lenses are not f2.8, but you are only paying less than 1/3 or 1/2 the price of the f2.8 'L' or the premium EFS17-55mm.
Just a summary of my humble opinions:
1. EF 28 - 105: Soft wide open, must use stopped down most of time.
2. EF 28 -135IS: Nice range, good sharpness but slightly weak contrast.
3. EF 24 - 85: Good balance of sharpness and contrast. 24mm can be useful.
Wont go on to compare these lenses with L lenses here since they are in different price bracket altogether. Just wanna end with a note to say that all lenses can take good pictures provided one understands and use them within their limitations. Cheers!
I have owned or have loaned many many lenses. The EF 24 - 85 f3.5-4.5 is a very nice and underrated lens. Having owned 3 copies of the 24-85mm before and have compared them to the 28-105 and 28-135IS which I have also owned previously. I will say that the 24-85mm has generally better contrast and sharpness than the 2 brothers. Ok, it is not better by a large margin but the advantage is still fairly visible. Of course the disadvantage is its shorter focal length but it is wider though at 24mm! OK, it certainly isnt as sharp as the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which I have also owned but the color is better than the Tamron in my humble opinion.
Wont elaborate how my opinions on these lenses are formed based on the different tests I have done but I will go on to say that there are actually no bad lenses here! Given that these lenses are quite affordable, you cant really fault them. True these lenses are not f2.8, but you are only paying less than 1/3 or 1/2 the price of the f2.8 'L' or the premium EFS17-55mm.
Just a summary of my humble opinions:
1. EF 28 - 105: Soft wide open, must use stopped down most of time.
2. EF 28 -135IS: Nice range, good sharpness but slightly weak contrast.
3. EF 24 - 85: Good balance of sharpness and contrast. 24mm can be useful.
Wont go on to compare these lenses with L lenses here since they are in different price bracket altogether. Just wanna end with a note to say that all lenses can take good pictures provided one understands and use them within their limitations. Cheers!
NightZ88 said:
- Status
Similar threads
