200 vs. 300 mm ! I seem to love this lens from the many reviews i see. I have in mind either a 70-200 L or 70-300 IS, however am a bit confused as:1) i don't want to loose the extra 100m between 200 and 300, and hence can anyone comment on this or possibly show what the extra 100 mm brings.2) the 70-300 seems to get blurry images in portrait, which makes me reluctant. Can anyone shed the light on this ?Many thanksEmileo 200 vs. 300 mm ! I seem to love this lens from the many reviews i see. I have in mind either a 70-200 L or 70-300 IS, however am a bit confused as:1) i don't want to loose the extra... » Read More 200 vs. 300 mm ! I seem to love this lens from the many reviews i see. I have in mind either a 70-200 L or 70-300 IS, however am a bit confused as:1) i don't want to loose the extra 100m between 200 and 300, and hence can anyone comment on this or possibly show what the extra 100 mm brings.2) the 70-300 seems to get blurry images in portrait, which makes me reluctant. Can anyone shed the light on this ?Many thanksEmileo « Show Less
1630104
Whoa, buying and having it shipped straight from Hong Kong? Did you ever do that in the states or only in the UK? BTW, thanks for the great posts Mark, they're turning out to be very very helpful. I am currently shopping around for a telephoto and have to make a decision soon about the aperture f/4 or f/2.8, the $$ i want to spend on it and whether I want IS or not. You may be able to help with the $$ on the Hong Kong issue. Thanks again! Nino
1630105
So, I'm looking to upgrade from the Canon EF-S 55-250 ISII lens that I currently shoot my daughter's soccer and outdoor nature scenes. I know this is an entry level L, still the price is hard to complain about. How much of a difference from my current lens (on a 70D) will this make, and will I still be able to shoot fairly clean/crisp images @ 200mm without IS? I can use a monopod, so I'm sure that would help. Thoughts?
1630106
Thanks a lot Mark, that surely makes a great feedback for me, really appreciated.If i read you well, i think i will go for the 70-300 IS USM, provided i can be confident Portrait Blurring is solved once for all.On another note, is it true that the 70-300 has background blur (nice effect) due to some magnetic field ... ! ! and finally, is it true you cannot use a polarizer on.how much would you sell your 70-300 ?thanks for the support,Emile-.
1272575
I have both the Tamron 17-50 and the 28-75 as well as the Tamron 28-300 that I shoot with the Nikon D200. I can't say if I prefer the 17-50 over 28-75 but I love both of them and find I use them both depending on what I'm shooting. If I could afford only 1 lens it would probably be the 28-75 for my type of shooting. If you;'e shooting large groups of people or need the wider angle then I'm sure 17-50 may serve you better.
1871181
There is such a wide range of lenses. The 70-200 II IS is a winner that will work well in low light. If you are in a well-lit situation then this 70-300 is a great lens with more reach and lighter weight plus less cost.
1716984
Hello Amy, I really haven't used this product since I bought it; I initially thought it was the 24-70mm f 2.8L. As a matter of fact, I will be returning it. I am, therefore, not the best person to give a critique. However, I'm sure you'll find these links useful: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspxhttp://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/
1784423
The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a... » Read More The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. « Show Less
2054213
The 85 has an even tighter angle of view than the 50. It's a great portrait lens, as in you can get a good head and shoulders shot and put the background nicely out of focus, but I suspect you want to get more in your pictures, not less. The lower the number of a lens's focal length, the wider angle of view it has. Didn't your camera come with an 18-55 zoom? If not, look for one on eBay. That's the normal "kit" lens for cameras with the Rebel's sensor size. You can find them for under $100 there. Make sure you get one with the "IS" designation. That means it has image stabilization which will help keep shots sharps during hand-held exposures. The 85 has an even tighter angle of view than the 50. It's a great portrait lens, as in you can get a good head and shoulders shot and put the background nicely out of focus, but I suspect you want to get more in your pictures, not less. The lower the number of a lens's focal length, the wider angle of view it has. Didn't your camera come with an 18-55 zoom? If not, look for one on eBay. That's the normal "kit" lens for cameras with the Rebel's sensor size. You can find them for under $100 there. Make sure you get one with the "IS" designation. That means it has image... » Read More The 85 has an even tighter angle of view than the 50. It's a great portrait lens, as in you can get a good head and shoulders shot and put the background nicely out of focus, but I suspect you want to get more in your pictures, not less. The lower the number of a lens's focal length, the wider angle of view it has. Didn't your camera come with an 18-55 zoom? If not, look for one on eBay. That's the normal "kit" lens for cameras with the Rebel's sensor size. You can find them for under $100 there. Make sure you get one with the "IS" designation. That means it has image stabilization which will help keep shots sharps during hand-held exposures. « Show Less
1864061
Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are... » Read More Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. « Show Less
1936776
I've had absolutely no issues. This is my second most go to lens when shooting portraits. I prefer the 70-200 more, but that's just my style.
137017
Honestly, there are some available on ebay with buyer protection (but I understand why you would want to get it from the above places instead). The 70-200mm is a great lens, but if you have your heart set on this particular lens you should wait to get this one :)I just ordered one from ebay but I did my research on the seller first.
466983
I don't have the 200mm, so can't compare. I have no complaints on this lens, if that helps.
1316303
Having never used the 300 F4 L, I can't compare. For sure you would be giving up one f stop. However, the 70-200 IS L F4 is considered one of the best zooms Canon makes, and I did compare the 70-200L with and without the 1.4 extender. Without the extender on the 70-200L it was close, but at max zoom on the monitor, the 70-300L was sharper and had better color saturation. With the extender, it was no contest, the 70-300L is way better. Hope this helps.
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
320074
I have a D800 and all the lenses you listed as well. The 35 i think would lend itself to portraits and the like. I take mostly outdoor stuff which the 28=300 is a fantastic all around lens that I use for a walk around lens. Necessary no not at all but a nice addition.
604837
Hi Jack - to be honest I've not had hands on with this lens. It was bought for my Son for his birthday. And from what I do know about it it is smaller and with the Macro capability - a more useful lens, also the 18-200 has less focal range then the newer Macro Lens. Seems to have pretty good reviews and as my son uses it for digital video - he's pretty happy thus far. Sorry I can't be of more help.Chuck
448719
i dont have the 24 85mm to truly give you a comparison. but according to a few reviews and test i saw the 24 85mm has a slightly better sharpness wile the 24 to 120 has more focal length. so it depends on what you are going to be shooting and what you want to pay for your lens.and fyi if you go for a 24 to 120mm i dont reccomend this version of it as its one of nikons worst modern lenses . get the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR its the revised version and supost to be a better lens. or if you really want focal length the 28mm to 300mm hope this helps
1784428
I use my 24-70 for just about everthing, it is a great lens. I have done portraits, events, weddings and my own stuff while on vacations. Your only other real alternatives are primes. (85mm, 50mm and the 70-200mm) The pics come out of the 24-70 really sharp, the bokeh is great and the contrast is really eye opening if you have metered your shots correctly... Hope this helps..Phil
1319767
I'm not an expert just a photo hobby guy. But i believe there might be a second generation image stabilization on the 300 mm lens. Plus the obvious better zoom capacity. My 200 does a pretty good job at getting indoor pictures at a basketball game. I have to set the right aperture and ISO at first but it works for me. Depends on your need for the additional zoom. Good luck