> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 14:00:58 +0200 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: EOS Telezoom dilemma > > Hi fellow listmembers, > > for the past year I've been trying to decide what telelens to buy. I > currently own Canon's 28-135 IS and 50/1.8 mk1 lens and a Tokina > 20-35/3.5-5.6, so I've got the short and normal end > sufficiently covered, > but I would like to have something with a bit more reach. Main purpose > would be portraits/candids and for isolating detail in landscape > photography and anything else that I get interested in once I > 've got a > long lens at my disposal and learn how to use it. I have > handled a friends > EF 75-300, but found its focus irritatingly slow and the > build quality not > so great. Since I would not mind spending a few euros more > I'm currently > considering the 200/2.8 (second hand), 80-200/2.8 (second > hand, obviously) > and 70-200/4 (new, seems impossible to find second hand in the > Netherlands). All these lenses are in the same price range. > The 200 prime > and the 80-200 zoom both have a 72 mm filter thread, which is > nice since I > own a couple of filters in that size. Also, both are black > which I consider > to be an advantage. The 80-200 is with its 1.3 kilos twice as > heavy as the > other two. Buying the 70-200 would get me a brand new lens, > but without a > tripod collar which limits its usefullness (so I would have > to spend extra > money for a tripod collar). The 200 is light, fast, black, > but not a zoom > lens. And all three lenses "only" go to 200 mm, and I'm not > quite sure if I > would like/need something up to 300 mm. See my dilemma? > > I would greatly appreciate your opinions on this, to help me > make up my > mind! What did or didn't you buy or and why (or why not)?How much of a > disadvantage would you consider the 80-200's weight to be? > Would 1.3 kilos > be too heavy for you? What you rather have a 300 than a 200 > mmm lens, or do > you find the difference of little importance in real life situations? > > Thanks, > > Bart
I recently went through the same dilemma, also in the Netherlands. I decided to get the 70-200 4.0. (As an addition to a 50 1.8 and 28-105, the 20-35 will follow) I considered: - 200 2.8 - Great tele - 135 2.0 - Great portrait lens, with a 1.4 you get a great 200 2.8 - 70-200 2.8 - Great telezoom - 100-400 IS - Fantastic zoom-range with IS - 75-300 IS - Usable 300mm due to IS, but not so good - 70-200 4.0 - Great telezoom I dropped the fixed focals since I thought I would miss the zoom. I dropped the 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 because I thought they would be too heavy to walk around with. Ofcourse the price made this an easy decision :-). I have read too many bad things about the performance on the long end of the 75-300's. Also the front end rotates on these lenses. So I went for the 70-200 4.0 (800 euro at www.internet-foto.de including handling) and haven't regretted it. The lens is quite light, not as big as the 2.8 or 100-400, focusses fast and the handling is great. Just got my first three rolls back and sharpness and color are great. Good decision! Whether you will miss the 300 mm is up to you. In fact I would like to have 300mm, but how? Maybe I will sometimes add an 300 4.0 IS. (It's tripod collar should fit the 70-200 4.0) I don't think that the lack of a tripod collar is so much of an issue. The lens is light enough to use the body's tripod mount. (Works good with my EOS5+VG10) For your 72mm filters you could buy a step-down ring and use them on the 4.0. Hope this helps, Stefan. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
