Any Canon users...

always get any L glass that's within budget, good glass lasts a long time and holds it's value if properly cared for, now there are some L lenses that have been replaced by mk2 versions, and for good reason, these were great lenses until full frame cameras came along and exposed some design weaknesses that canon was forced to address, and in the case of the 70-200 f4 Is it was because so many wanted IS in that lens, i have the non IS, and i'm here to say, that is one fine piece of glass
 
Okay hold the phone here.. ; I was going to recommend the 70-300 IS as an alternative to the DO IS. ; It's significantly cheaper AND reputed to be slightly sharper. ; But.. wait.. you've already got the 55-250? ; That's an IS, right? ; I know, you said that in the beginning, but I didn't quite process that bit of info.

I'm not sure the 70-300 is a significant enough upgrade for you. ; At least to me. ; I think it'll offer better optical performance, but I'm not sure how much more, it looks like the 55-250 may be a surprisingly decent lens for the money. ; The extra 50mm of reach won't be a tremendous difference either. ; It might improve the quality of the long end of your reach.

Let's try this. ; What do you want to use the lens for?

Oh, and I say this next bit jokingly.. beware L glass. ; If you've never used it you don't know what you're missing, and ignorance CAN be bliss. ; Once you get your hands on an L lens.. or should I say, L lens, you'll never want to go back. ; They have a satisfyingly solid feel (which, admittedly, does mean they're a bit heavier), and the zoom and focus actions are luxuriously damped. ; The 70-200F4 that Gary mentioned seems to be a popular gateway L lens. ; It's among the cheaper L lenses and if you've started out with just a 17-55 kit lens it offers a useful expansion of focal length range. ; That's how I got hooked, I was looking for something to use in the zoo and wasn't quite ready to shell out $1000 or more for the longer options. ; And I don't believe the Tamron 200-500 existed at the time.
 
"Dan" said:
Okay hold the phone here.. ; I was going to recommend the 70-300 IS as an alternative to the DO IS. ; It's significantly cheaper AND reputed to be slightly sharper. ; But.. wait.. you've already got the 55-250? ; That's an IS, right? ; I know, you said that in the beginning, but I didn't quite process that bit of info.

Let's try this. ; What do you want to use the lens for?
Click to expand...

LOL
Yes, I own the 55-250 and it is an IS lens. ; I love it but I definitely want a longer reach than that. ; I live on a river that is just teeming with wildlife and I have often wished I could zoom in closer on the birds, fish (they actually jump out of the water and I am determined to catch one of them someday), rabbits, squirrels, groundhogs and anything else I am lucky enough to find in my yard. ; I also love taking photos of people from afar, when they don't know I am doing it. ; (mostly people I know and love...but I really like those candid shots instead of the posed ones, you know?) ; I also have some great local places for shooting wildlife, just a few minutes down the road from me. ; It's quiet during the week and I could get in a lot of practice without alot of people around.

So many of the longer lenses look so intimidating to me. ; They seem to scream "Hey look at me, I actually know what I am doing", when I pretty much don't.....YET. ; :) ; Give me time though. ; I guess I shouldn't worry about this so much, as I have plenty of opportunities to shoot right in my own backyard, and nobody is gonna even see me doing it. ; Just a silly confidence thing I guess. ;

Thank you Gary, and Dan both. ; I think I may go the rental route first. ; Seems like a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top