What new lens

Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2006
Posts
5,610
Location
UK
Ok i want a new lens for the 350d, i was thinking a tele for wildlife and sports etc. Some at least up to 500 but if below that all the better. I want the best one i can get within this price range. I noticed this one on ******* (can i say that name here?) Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is it any good i cant really find any good reviews on the web. Anyone got a lens similar to this maybe? Any thought would be good as i only have the camera a few weeks.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Aug 2003
Posts
4,495
Location
The North
Not a big wildlife photographer so can only really pass on what i've heard. That is you really need at least 300mm. Also the Sigma bigma is always getting rave reviews as a relatively cheap long lens.

For reviews on any lens your interested in search google for POTN, its a massive canon forum with first hand reviews on everything canon or otherwise.

Also lots of reviews at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

I've got the canon 70-200mm f4 which is awsome. Probably not long enough for your needs but it is a great lens.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Posts
696
You need more than 200mm for wildlife, or a converter - it depends how close you're going to get.

I would consider the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with a 2x converter (becomes F5.6 wide open) or a Sigma 100-300 F4 with a 1.4x converter (becomes F5.6 wide open).

I actually have the 70-200F4, I love it because it's very portable and sharp but it's too short for wildlife and you can only use a 1.4x converter or you'll lose autofocus.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
12 Jan 2006
Posts
5,610
Location
UK
Sleepyd said:
You need more than 200mm for wildlife, or a converter - it depends how close you're going to get.

I would consider the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with a 2x converter (becomes F5.6 wide open) or a Sigma 100-300 F4 with a 1.4x converter (becomes F5.6 wide open).

I actually have the 70-200F4, I love it because it's very portable and sharp but it's too short for wildlife and you can only use a 1.4x converter or you'll lose autofocus.

I fully understand that i would need at least 300mm for wild life but the kind i would be shooting the moment will be close enough anyway. I will hopefully be using this more for sports and motorsports for example i go to a lot of rallies and hopefully this will come in useful.

So if i dont like it i can always bring it back :p
 
Associate
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
853
Location
West Yorkshire
I have the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and I think it is a cracking lens.

I chose this over the 70-200 f/4 L because of the extra reach and the IS (which I really need as I have very unsteady hands) and I wasn't disappointed at all.

A sample:

lavilla.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom