Not another lens question ;-)

Maybe it is It's for my Canon 300D.

I've been setting my eyes on the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L lens for a while but I
need to save up for it first. I've shot with this glass on my friend's cam
and love how it performs in low light. I guess having a extra couple stops
above 80mm definitely helps (compared to the 300D kit lens)

In the mean time, I'm wondering if you would recommend a _cheap_ telephoto
lens that I can use to work on my techniques. Maybe something under $200.

TIA,
Henry

wrote:
Maybe it is It's for my Canon 300D.

I've been setting my eyes on the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L lens for a
while but I
need to save up for it first. I've shot with this glass on my
friend's cam
and love how it performs in low light. I guess having a extra couple
stops
above 80mm definitely helps (compared to the 300D kit lens)

In the mean time, I'm wondering if you would recommend a _cheap_
telephoto
lens that I can use to work on my techniques. Maybe something under
$200.

I just bought myself a telephoto and was in the same boat as you till
about three hours back.

The $209 Sigma 70-300mm APO f/4-5.6 seems to be the choice if you trust
Sigma's QC. Or the Canon 55-200mm /80-200mm (based on photodo test
results).

- Siddhartha

wrote:
Maybe it is It's for my Canon 300D.

I've been setting my eyes on the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L lens for a
while but I
need to save up for it first. I've shot with this glass on my
friend's cam
and love how it performs in low light. I guess having a extra couple
stops
above 80mm definitely helps (compared to the 300D kit lens)

In the mean time, I'm wondering if you would recommend a _cheap_
telephoto
lens that I can use to work on my techniques. Maybe something under
$200.

I just bought myself a telephoto and was in the same boat as you till
about three hours back.

The $209 Sigma 70-300mm APO f/4-5.6 seems to be the choice if you trust
Sigma's QC. Or the Canon 55-200mm /80-200mm (based on photodo test
results).

- Siddhartha

Confused wrote:
I still like my EF 75-300 IS lens. It does get soft at 300mm
and needs more light, but I use the zoom end for full framed
viewfinder-cropped face shots and close birds (and other stuff) so
the
softness that is widely complained about is not a problem for me. I
think it's a great lens, if not the sharpest tack.

The only hitch is that the Canon 75-300mm IS USM III isn't under $200


- Siddhartha

Confused wrote:
I still like my EF 75-300 IS lens. It does get soft at 300mm
and needs more light, but I use the zoom end for full framed
viewfinder-cropped face shots and close birds (and other stuff) so
the
softness that is widely complained about is not a problem for me. I
think it's a great lens, if not the sharpest tack.

The only hitch is that the Canon 75-300mm IS USM III isn't under $200


- Siddhartha

I suggest that you will be $200 closer to the 70-200 F/2.8 IS if you
just continue to save and develop you photography tallent with what you
currently have. The other option I might suggest is that you are $1200
closer to a 70-200 F/4 ($600) than the 70-200 F/2.8 IS ($1600) (since
money seems to limit your opportunities.) In any event, you will be
able to ebay a 70-200 F/4 for the vast majority of its cost to you
(90%-95%) where you will not be so lucky with the lesser lenses. L
lenses hold their values well.

I suggest that you will be $200 closer to the 70-200 F/2.8 IS if you
just continue to save and develop you photography tallent with what you
currently have. The other option I might suggest is that you are $1200
closer to a 70-200 F/4 ($600) than the 70-200 F/2.8 IS ($1600) (since
money seems to limit your opportunities.) In any event, you will be
able to ebay a 70-200 F/4 for the vast majority of its cost to you
(90%-95%) where you will not be so lucky with the lesser lenses. L
lenses hold their values well.