Got 350 XT Today, Need Long Lens

I've been looking for a black Canon 350XT for a couple of weeks, and finally
found one that had been on hold at a local camera store. Whoever had
committed to purchase it, didn't show on the appointed day (yesterday) so
when I dropped into the store today, they tried to call her, couldn't get
her, and the camera is mine, all mine!

Anyway, I'm debating over the purchase of a long lens. I've boiled it down
to two: The Canon 75-300 w/ IS or the Canon 70-200 L 4.0.

The reviews I have found indicate that the L series lens is a tremendous
performer, but with the airshow photography I like to do, it may eventually
require a 1.4x converter, which makes the overall price something like $575
for the L lens and another $250 for a teleconverter... Net $825, versus $425
or so for the 75-300 w/IS.

One advantage of the 75-300 is that it would simplify my lens collection..
No need for the 1.4x converter, so I'd only need a total of 2 pieces of
glass. On the downside, I played with this lens today and it felt cheap,
which is a real negative for me.

One thing I'd like to do is get my hands on the 70-200, so I could see how
it feels in my hands... Unfortunately, I can't find one in the Atlanta
area...

Thoughts on working through this decision? I've looked at the reviews on
Amazon and a couple of other places, but can't seem to find many sites where
both lenses are reviewed.

Thanks in advance,

KB

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...
I've been looking for a black Canon 350XT for a couple of weeks, and
finally found one that had been on hold at a local camera store. Whoever
had committed to purchase it, didn't show on the appointed day (yesterday)
so when I dropped into the store today, they tried to call her, couldn't
get her, and the camera is mine, all mine!

Anyway, I'm debating over the purchase of a long lens. I've boiled it
down to two: The Canon 75-300 w/ IS or the Canon 70-200 L 4.0.

The reviews I have found indicate that the L series lens is a tremendous
performer, but with the airshow photography I like to do, it may
eventually require a 1.4x converter, which makes the overall price
something like $575 for the L lens and another $250 for a teleconverter...
Net $825, versus $425 or so for the 75-300 w/IS.

One advantage of the 75-300 is that it would simplify my lens collection..
No need for the 1.4x converter, so I'd only need a total of 2 pieces of
glass. On the downside, I played with this lens today and it felt cheap,
which is a real negative for me.

One thing I'd like to do is get my hands on the 70-200, so I could see how
it feels in my hands... Unfortunately, I can't find one in the Atlanta
area...

Thoughts on working through this decision?

Congrats on the 350 Kyle. I've been thinking about buying one as well but I
find it a bit small compared to my 300D. I think I may hold out for the
20D.

Anyway, on the lenses. I bought two lenses. The first on was the EF
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM . The second was the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
USM. I've found that these two lenses along with the 18-55 that came with
the camera cover just about everything I want to do. Admittedly the lenses
are pricey but IMHO the results have been worth the cost.

Between the two you listed I'd be tempted to go with the L lens but the IS
is very nice especially when shooting in lower light at max zoom.

--

Rob

Kyle Boatright wrote:
I've been looking for a black Canon 350XT for a couple of weeks, and
finally
found one that had been on hold at a local camera store. Whoever had
committed to purchase it, didn't show on the appointed day
(yesterday) so
when I dropped into the store today, they tried to call her, couldn't
get
her, and the camera is mine, all mine!

Anyway, I'm debating over the purchase of a long lens. I've boiled
it down
to two: The Canon 75-300 w/ IS or the Canon 70-200 L 4.0.

The reviews I have found indicate that the L series lens is a
tremendous
performer, but with the airshow photography I like to do, it may
eventually
require a 1.4x converter, which makes the overall price something
like $575
for the L lens and another $250 for a teleconverter... Net $825,
versus $425
or so for the 75-300 w/IS.

One advantage of the 75-300 is that it would simplify my lens
collection..
No need for the 1.4x converter, so I'd only need a total of 2 pieces
of
glass. On the downside, I played with this lens today and it felt
cheap,
which is a real negative for me.

One thing I'd like to do is get my hands on the 70-200, so I could
see how
it feels in my hands... Unfortunately, I can't find one in the
Atlanta
area...

Thoughts on working through this decision? I've looked at the
reviews on
Amazon and a couple of other places, but can't seem to find many
sites where
both lenses are reviewed.

Thanks in advance,

KB

I love my Tokina 80-400 mm f4.5-5.6. The following photo was taken hand
held with my 300D of a six-inch long woodpecker. It's a heavy lens, but
can be hand held. I was able to enlarge it to an 8x10, even more with
cropping, with very little loss in quality.
http://www.photoportfolios.net/portf...=5697& u=5697

Hope this helps

I used to have the 75-300 with IS and thought the 70-300 DO with IS would be
better, a costly mistake. I sent it to Canon 2 times for repair for poor
focussing and it is back there again because it does not work right. The
specs were interesting but only one was better than the 75-300, focussing
speed. At least the 75-300 focussed correctly even if it was slower.

If I had to do it over again, I would get the 70-200 f4 and a 1.4x
teleconverter. I have the 70-200 f2,8 but it's too heavy to carry around
all the time. Get a Canon teleconverter too, the cheaper ones are just that
cheaper.

If your budget is limited, the 75-300 IS is quite good, I know I miss mine.

If you want to invest for a long time, get an "L" lens, they really are
better.

Jean


"Kyle Boatright" a écrit dans le message de
...
I've been looking for a black Canon 350XT for a couple of weeks, and
finally
found one that had been on hold at a local camera store. Whoever had
committed to purchase it, didn't show on the appointed day (yesterday) so
when I dropped into the store today, they tried to call her, couldn't get
her, and the camera is mine, all mine!

Anyway, I'm debating over the purchase of a long lens. I've boiled it
down
to two: The Canon 75-300 w/ IS or the Canon 70-200 L 4.0.

The reviews I have found indicate that the L series lens is a tremendous
performer, but with the airshow photography I like to do, it may
eventually
require a 1.4x converter, which makes the overall price something like
$575
for the L lens and another $250 for a teleconverter... Net $825, versus
$425
or so for the 75-300 w/IS.

One advantage of the 75-300 is that it would simplify my lens collection..
No need for the 1.4x converter, so I'd only need a total of 2 pieces of
glass. On the downside, I played with this lens today and it felt cheap,
which is a real negative for me.

One thing I'd like to do is get my hands on the 70-200, so I could see how
it feels in my hands... Unfortunately, I can't find one in the Atlanta
area...

Thoughts on working through this decision? I've looked at the reviews on
Amazon and a couple of other places, but can't seem to find many sites
where
both lenses are reviewed.

Thanks in advance,

KB

In message ,
"jean" wrote:

Get a Canon teleconverter too, the cheaper ones are just that
cheaper.

The Kenko Pro 300 and Tamron SP TCs are just as good as the Canons.

There is no such thing as "the tamron" or "the kenko", as people have
reported. There are at least two series for each brand.

You can use non-Canon TCs with *ANY* lens, which you can't do with the
Canons.

My Tamron SP 2x combined with my Tamron 90mm Di Macro is sharper than
most of my Canon lenses by themselves. I get about 80% modulation in
the space of two pixels (3 inclusive) on my 20D.
--


John P Sheehy

Kyle Boatright wrote:
Anyway, I'm debating over the purchase of a long lens.

200/2.8
2x