How to buy a good lense

On Feb 4, 10:39 am, "Pete D" wrote:
"King Sardon" wrote in message

...





On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:12:06 +0000, (Keith) wrote:

wrote:

Is this lense good and worthed to buy??

GENUINE CANON EOS 75 - 300 mm F4 - 5.6 Mk III ZOOM LENS
onwww.ebay.co.uk
GBP 75.00
Item number: 130073064653

It's Lens not Lense

It's worth, not worthed.

Anyway, the 75-300mm is considered to be a decent lens but possibly
not that great at the 300mm end. And you would probably want to use
the 300 mm end a lot.

Check out Google and make sure you are looking at the correct flavor
of the 75-300mm varieties.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography.../eos/EF-lenses...
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008kQE

KS

Mind you i would never buy one, cos it will not fit my cameras.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

AT last ...after lots of messages on stupidity, there is one one
cameras.
I think, everybody when out of subject...so...on stupidity!!
I just asked if it is worthed to buy a GENUINE CANON EOS 75 - 300 mm
F4 - 5.6 Mk III ZOOM LENS from www.ebay.co.uk item number 130073064653
for GBP75 for my New Canon EOS 400D.
Is it a bargain, or better go for a Sigma or Tamron?
Or stick with my 15-55mm?

Help needed. (Kindly if there are spelling mistakes, ignore them)
Thanks guys

On 4 Feb 2007 02:05:16 -0800, "Sbosic" wrote:

On Feb 4, 10:39 am, "Pete D" wrote:
"King Sardon" wrote in message

...





On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:12:06 +0000, (Keith) wrote:

wrote:

Is this lense good and worthed to buy??

GENUINE CANON EOS 75 - 300 mm F4 - 5.6 Mk III ZOOM LENS
onwww.ebay.co.uk
GBP 75.00
Item number: 130073064653

It's Lens not Lense

It's worth, not worthed.

Anyway, the 75-300mm is considered to be a decent lens but possibly
not that great at the 300mm end. And you would probably want to use
the 300 mm end a lot.

Check out Google and make sure you are looking at the correct flavor
of the 75-300mm varieties.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography.../eos/EF-lenses...
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008kQE

KS

Mind you i would never buy one, cos it will not fit my cameras.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

AT last ...after lots of messages on stupidity, there is one one
cameras.
I think, everybody when out of subject...so...on stupidity!!
I just asked if it is worthed to buy a GENUINE CANON EOS 75 - 300 mm
F4 - 5.6 Mk III ZOOM LENS from www.ebay.co.uk item number 130073064653
for GBP75 for my New Canon EOS 400D.
Is it a bargain, or better go for a Sigma or Tamron?
Or stick with my 15-55mm?

Help needed. (Kindly if there are spelling mistakes, ignore them)
Thanks guys

I had that lens, for my Digital Rebel/300D.
There's nothing wrong with that lens; there are much better lenses out
there.
It's soft at the long end, and I found it to be a little slow on
focusing, but in good light, it's not bad.
I replaced it with the newer EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, and have
been very happy I did so.
As for whether or not this is a good bargain for you, I can't say;
only you can make that decision.
Should you stick with the 15-55mm lens? I don't understand that
question. There is no way to compare a 70-300mm lens with a 15-55mm
lens. They cover entirely different ranges.

--
The New York Yankees signed a
deal with China Monday to expand
baseball into the world's largest
nation. The people of China meet
the first test of what it takes
to be great baseball fans. They
are not fussy at all about what
goes into a hot dog.

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:41:06 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

Help needed. (Kindly if there are spelling mistakes, ignore them)
Thanks guys

I had that lens, for my Digital Rebel/300D.
There's nothing wrong with that lens; there are much better lenses out
there.
It's soft at the long end, and I found it to be a little slow on
focusing, but in good light, it's not bad.
I replaced it with the newer EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, and have
been very happy I did so.
As for whether or not this is a good bargain for you, I can't say;
only you can make that decision.
Should you stick with the 15-55mm lens? I don't understand that
question. There is no way to compare a 70-300mm lens with a 15-55mm
lens. They cover entirely different ranges.

As Sbosic is aware of his spelling difficulties, he may be more
fluent in languages other than English, and so didn't phrase his
question in a manner that avoids any possibility of ambiguity. He
probably meant "Is the 70-300mm lens good enough to consider adding
to my lens collection, or should I stick with just the 15-55mm
lens." If he indicated that he would make do with either the
15-15mm or the 70-300mm lens, but not both, I must have missed it.
Your description of the lens should be good enough for him to decide
whether to keep bidding or not, assuming that someone tops his
initial bid, giving him the opportunity to drop out.

ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:41:06 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

Help needed. (Kindly if there are spelling mistakes, ignore them)
Thanks guys
I had that lens, for my Digital Rebel/300D.
There's nothing wrong with that lens; there are much better lenses out
there.
It's soft at the long end, and I found it to be a little slow on
focusing, but in good light, it's not bad.
I replaced it with the newer EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, and have
been very happy I did so.
As for whether or not this is a good bargain for you, I can't say;
only you can make that decision.
Should you stick with the 15-55mm lens? I don't understand that
question. There is no way to compare a 70-300mm lens with a 15-55mm
lens. They cover entirely different ranges.

As Sbosic is aware of his spelling difficulties, he may be more
fluent in languages other than English, and so didn't phrase his
question in a manner that avoids any possibility of ambiguity. He
probably meant "Is the 70-300mm lens good enough to consider adding
to my lens collection, or should I stick with just the 15-55mm
lens." If he indicated that he would make do with either the
15-15mm or the 70-300mm lens, but not both, I must have missed it.
Your description of the lens should be good enough for him to decide
whether to keep bidding or not, assuming that someone tops his
initial bid, giving him the opportunity to drop out.


Then again, it might have been his item and he was shilling it. Owwww, I
have become too skeptical.

Anyway, I really was under the impression that this was a poor lens.

--
John McWilliams

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:37:45 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:

Then again, it might have been his item and he was shilling it. Owwww,
I have become too skeptical.

You too? I offerred that as one possibility in my initial reply
in this thread. Probably not, though.

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:52:19 -0500, "Hoover" wrote:

WTF is a "lense"?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Is this lense good and worthed to buy??

GENUINE CANON EOS 75 - 300 mm F4 - 5.6 Mk III ZOOM LENS
on www.ebay.co.uk
GBP 75.00
Item number: 130073064653



I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
spelling of the English word, lense.

BTW, in contrast to statements from our present administration, we
Americans do not speak English. We speak (and spell) American. The
languages are similar, but have many different words for the same
thing. In addition, as with lens, there are also other words which
are pronounced the same, but are spelled differently in the two
languages. Color/colour is a well known example.

In any case, I do agree that some Americans think that the English
spelling denotes a higher class product. In fact, some advertisements
intentionally take advantage of that misconception.

For those who do not want to use the terms American and English as the
names for two different languages, I like the terms used by many
software publishers in their multi-national products. They offer a
choice of USenglish or UKenglish. Why not?


Bruce

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:19:47 +0000, Bruce Patis wrote:


I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
spelling of the English word, lense.
This is nonsense- the spelling is lens.

BTW, in contrast to statements from our present administration, we
Americans do not speak English. We speak (and spell) American. The
languages are similar, but have many different words for the same
thing. In addition, as with lens, there are also other words which
are pronounced the same, but are spelled differently in the two
languages. Color/colour is a well known example.
It is the same language, just a different dialect.




--
Neil
Reverse 'r' and 'a', delete 'l' for email.

Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:19:47 +0000, Bruce Patis wrote:

I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
spelling of the English word, lense.
This is nonsense- the spelling is lens.

Perhaps a few centuries ago it was somewhat common on either side of the
Atlantic, but it's sure grown tiresome in this one.

BTW, in contrast to statements from our present administration, we
Americans do not speak English. We speak (and spell) American. The
languages are similar, but have many different words for the same
thing. In addition, as with lens, there are also other words which
are pronounced the same, but are spelled differently in the two
languages. Color/colour is a well known example.

It is the same language, just a different dialect.

I'd wager there are more anomalies in each dialect than there are
differences between the two.

--
john mcwilliams

Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:19:47 +0000, Bruce Patis wrote:


I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
spelling of the English word, lense.
This is nonsense- the spelling is lens.

Unless you spell it lense.

From WordNet (r) 2.0[wn]:
lense
n : a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge
transmitted light and to form images [syn: lens, lens
system]

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Feb 5, 8:02 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:19:47 +0000, Bruce Patis wrote:

I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
spelling of the English word, lense.
This is nonsense- the spelling is lens.

Unless you spell it lense.

From WordNet (r) 2.0[wn]:
lense
n : a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge
transmitted light and to form images [syn: lens, lens
system]

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

thanks everybody!!!
it means that i am not so stupid...
by the way...i am neither english nor american...
but to tell the truth....i wish i was born any of them!!