stjhie said:What you guyz think of Canon 70-200mm f/4L lens? Is it worth it?
Definitely get a L... The 70-200 L has better image quality and faster AF(important for capturing things fast)... Of cos, the cons is $$$stjhie said:Ok, thanks fword. Any ideas on the Canon 70-300 IS (non DO and DO) ones? They are significantly smaller but I'm wishing for a "L" lens and a grey pro looking lens Are they sharp too as they have such a long range.
70-300 IS cannot make it, get 70-200 f/2.8 IS L.kraterz said:Get the 70-300 IS. Optics are great and it has got IS.
_espn_ said:70-300 IS cannot make it, get 70-200 f/2.8 IS L.
u sure? ...... :think:stjhie said:...........an almost same optical quality
cyber_m0nkey said:There is not a linear relationship between cost and quality. For marginal increases in quality, usually in colour and contrast, you will pay significantly more. You can't say "it cost 2x, therefore I want 2x the quality" it just doesn't work that way.
stjhie said:Oh, canon do make an f/1.0 lens? never seen before. haha. Let's just lay our hands on Canon 1200mm f/5.6
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php
Treat to the eye!
stjhie said:Oh, canon do make an f/1.0 lens? never seen before. haha. Let's just lay our hands on Canon 1200mm f/5.6
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php
Treat to the eye!