Guest Tess32 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 How about showing us some pics from this little beauty. After my shots yesterday I wonder if I need this lens or the 70-200. Here's some....taken in rainy, icky conditions. F5.6, 390mm, ISO 2000, 1/60 F5.6, 1/1000, ISO 1600, 400mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Very nice Have you used any noise reduction software on those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FHRP Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Ooh, I was eyeing off this lens recently. You say it's a little slower to focus, would it not be suitable for dog agility photo's then? I'm just dreaming anyway, $2300 is out of my reach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubiton Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I'd suggest it would be overkill since you can get close enough with a 70-300mm IS black lens which is easier to move and less than $1000. I have no problem with 'focus speed' with any of the newer lens I have purchased in the last two years - the only one was a 90-300mm which didnt like the 40D and was noticably slower to focus with that camera than the earlier models for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Ooh, I was eyeing off this lens recently. You say it's a little slower to focus, would it not be suitable for dog agility photo's then? I'm just dreaming anyway, $2300 is out of my reach :rolleyes: The Zoo (and the conditions I had it in) REALLY pushes auto focus on most lenses - you've got to get through bars, dirty windows etc. Compared to the 70-200's (F4 and F2.8) it is slower for SURE, but I'd say outdoors in normal conditions it would be fine, though still not as good as those two. For agility....a little overkill I think as I can't imagine too many scenarios where you'd need 400mm. You'd be better off upgrading to a 2.8 lens so that it'd be faster etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I'd suggest it would be overkill since you can get close enough with a 70-300mm IS black lens which is easier to move and less than $1000. I have no problem with 'focus speed' with any of the newer lens I have purchased in the last two years - the only one was a 90-300mm which didnt like the 40D and was noticably slower to focus with that camera than the earlier models for some reason. Depends on the conditions and what you shoot - if you're mostly outdoors sure, but I can definitely see a difference in every lens I have tried at the zoo and its ability to AF fast. I've tried the 70-300 IS, 70-200 2.8 IS, 70-200 F4 and now the 100-400 and two 70-200's blitzed the other two. I find the focus on those two also much more accurate than the 70-300. I got a lot of keepers on the 70-300 but also a lot of shots I SHOULD have gotten but it didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FHRP Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 (edited) Thanks guys, I do actually want a bigger zoom :rolleyes: Not just for agility I guess, but for other dogs sports where the dogs are further away but still moving fast. Like I said, I'm dreaming anyway. Edited March 16, 2009 by FHRP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubiton Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Tess - was it the older 70-300 DO IS lens or the 70-300 IS lens? The DO lens is twice the price and has been around a lot longer than the other one. Apparently the newer one is bigger and chunkier than the DO one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Tess - was it the older 70-300 DO IS lens or the 70-300 IS lens? The DO lens is twice the price and has been around a lot longer than the other one. Apparently the newer one is bigger and chunkier than the DO one. Wasn't the DO lens - I thought about buying that at the time but I couldn't find one person on the Canon forums who even recommended it! Seems like the difference in price is size (though be very handy to have a 300mm lens the size of the DO one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubiton Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I've done two major race meetings with the 70-300mm and it seems to be pretty quick with the 40D. The 90-300mm I had definately wasnt while the 10D and 350D were fine with the 90-300mm the 40D was very slow to focus and therefore I got less shots in the burst in race finishes. The 40D loved the 70-210mm lens in comparision and Im told that was once a top line lens back in the days of film cameras (I bought it second hand for $100 at auction - one of the best auction buys I've made) and its done the bulk of my stuff for the last 18 months until I got the 70-300mm recently. However I also only use the IS on the vertical setting not the panning - since I reckon I can handle the panning part after all this time - so that doesnt seem to kick in too much so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now