Consider the Canon 55-250 especially if you are on a budget. Great bang for the buck in a lightweight package - some comments and sample pictures at that link.
Thanks for the other choices. I'll really have to sit down and weigh them all. The sample pics were impressive as well. So far my limited exposure with this site has been rewarding. Well I'm about to depart for Cambridge UK just lugging the 17-85 but I'll find plenty to shoot at. Thanks, Robert
obroni wrote:
It doesn't make sense to buy EF-S telephoto - you have a wide selection of EF telephoto. The only range where EF-S is useful is wide end.
I disagree...
I had a 70-300 IS and sold it for the 55-250 to reap the benefits of the smaller and lighter EF-S telephoto. Plus 55 creates more opportunity for me rather than 70 on the wide (for 1.6 crop factor).
I made the switch 3 months ago and have been very happy with the swap.
I'm still pondering splurging for the 80-200 IS or saving the doe for a better body and getting the 55-250. All comments are welcome but I have a couple more questions. Of course every lense has its users that rave and those that pan it but other than price vs. IQ you just have to go with what "blows your skirt up" I guess.
Has anyone a comment on a Canon 35-350mm f3.5/5.6 L?
joezasada mentioned an 80-200 "magic drainpipe. I've looked but all I've seen is an Canon 80-200 "kit" lense for almost nothing. More info?
I'm leaning toward saving for a better body and it sounds like most folks here prefer the 40d.
confused but learning more n more
Thanks Ian. That's probably what I'll do and wait to see what my next body will be before adding more lenses. I spoke to a fellow in Cambridge saturday that had the 80-200 f4 IS and he said the IS was mandatory because of the weight. I held his camera and it was a heavy puppy. The lens must be a good 2 lbs.
robert
Nearly as good IQ as the 70-200 but around half the cost and slightly lighter weight.
downsides are it extends a fair bit to get to the long end is a full stop slower at the long end as well, front element rotates when it focuses and uses a not so good AF system. But its is a good lens.
For a all around lens, look at the 18-200mm EFs IS. It is not a "L" lens by any stretch of the imagination, but its small, lightweight and a one size fits all. Unless you are printing large enlargements, prints will look great.
scalesusa wrote:
For a all around lens, look at the 18-200mm EFs IS. It is not a "L" lens by any stretch of the imagination, but its small, lightweight and a one size fits all. Unless you are printing large enlargements, prints will look great.
I dont know what that lens costs in the states but over here its £450 . when you look at the cost of the 18-55IS (£109) and the 55-250IS(£194) that = £303 , so £150 not to have to change lenses and the 18-200 gets a worse review than both of the the others.
Also the 70-200/4L non IS costs the same as the 18-200 , I think I know what one I'd choose
CosmicCruiser wrote:
What's an 8 yr old 70-200f4 worth? Is the quality the same as a new one?
Could not tell you a price but if you look at no more than 60% of the new cost then that should give you an idea. (L's hold their value well) Search on the B&S board on here should get you an idea
Remember an 8yr old /4L will not have IS as that version is quite new. But other than that I would not expect the used lens to be any worse than a new version (non IS is still in production) Also remember that altough IS is great it cant help if your subject is moveing as slower shutter speeds will leave a blurred subject.
obroni wrote:
It doesn't make sense to buy EF-S telephoto - you have a wide selection of EF telephoto. The only range where EF-S is useful is wide end.
Disagree. Consider for a moment that the 55-250 IS on an APS-C camera gives the same range as the 100-400L IS on full frame, yet is easily half the size and weight. If you have an APS-C camera, why not take advantage of the lenses specially designed for that format?
