Got 350 XT Today, Need Long Lens

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Kyle Boatright, Apr 3, 2005.

  1. 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

    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,

    Kyle Boatright, Apr 3, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. I just got a 70-200 F4 L this week and have been using it on a 20D.
    It's out standing. I'm thinking about a converter for later in the
    summer but it is a wonderful lenses both in optics and build. It was
    579 from B&H and I think and outstanding value for that price.

    Have you looked at these reviews of Canon lenses?

    And here is a very good tool for comparing MTF charts of various Canon


    "Take the glamour out of war! I mean how the bloody Hell
    can you do that? Go and take the glamour out of a Huey, go
    take the glamour out of a Sheridan....Can you take the
    glamour out of a Cobra or getting stoned on China Beach?...
    Oh war is good for you, you can't take the glamour out of
    of that. It's like trying to take the glamour out of sex,
    trying to take the glamour out of the Rolling Stones...I
    mean, you know that, it just can't be done."

    Tim Page to editor asking him to "finally
    take the glamour out of war.".
    From "Nam" by Tim Page
    John A. Stovall, Apr 3, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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

    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.
    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Apr 3, 2005
  4. 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.

    Hope this helps
    nmjohnston874, Apr 6, 2005
  5. Kyle Boatright

    jean Guest

    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

    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

    jean, Apr 9, 2005
  6. Kyle Boatright

    JPS Guest

    In message <I6I5e.27108$>,
    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

    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.
    JPS, Apr 9, 2005
  7. Kyle Boatright

    bj286 Guest

    bj286, Apr 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.