File :-(, x, )
70-210 USM Anonymous
70-210 USM 3.5-4.5

Anyone here has it? How is it feel/which results did you acomplish?
The only tele since i got my 400D i tested was a 70-200 F4L (i uploaded some pics of a rugby match a few weeks ago) and it was awesome.

Anyway, i could get a 70-210 USM like for 1/3 of a brand new 70-200 F4L. I woud really like to read some users comments who actually has the lens of tested.

Thanks in advance.

Pic very related, is the actual lens i would buy.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-R1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2008:01:21 00:36:27Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length65.10 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3031Image Height2094RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
I had it. It was very close in image quality to my 70-200 f/4L. The build quality is alright, nothing to write home about. It's definitely a sleeper lens in terms of IQ though.
>> Anonymous
You get what you pay for.
>> Anonymous
>>213952
Would you mind in giving a brief explanation on what IQ means related to lenses? Not much, just a hint to keep indagating.
>> Anonymous
>>213960
Image Quality.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
skip a few lunches, eat at costco, and save for the 70-200 f4 l
>> Anonymous
>>213964

Thank you.

>>213966

Well, that was my original idea, but i got a tamron 17-50 (new) a 400D + grip, a 4gb card, and a mkI 50mm in like a month and a half... it's not out of my budget, but yes atm. The reason i'm considering this lens is becouse it seems it gives you a nice image quality, its weight less, and it's only 1 stop difference than the F4L, of course you wont get neither the build quality, nor the same image quality, but its really expensive and i think it would save me for taking pictures that right now i can't, and i think the resell value wont drop on this lens.

Thanks everyone for the comments.
>> Anonymous
>>213967
I meant "unexpensive"
>> Anonymous
>>213968
No, you meant "inexpensive."
>> Anonymous
>>213969
Yes, you are right.
>> Anonymous
Anyone?
>> Anonymous
Bump for reviewers
>> Anonymous
My stock advice for lenses:

1. Go to Flickr.
2. Type in their name.
3. Look at the pictures.
4. Pick the one you like the best.

Even if it doesn't resolve as much or whatever, you could prefer something else about the 70-210.
>> Anonymous
>>214124
That's pretty stupid, as most people on flickr shop the hell out of their pictures. Oversharpening, oversaturating, you can't judge a lens on that.
>> Anonymous
>>214124
I really meant actual reviewers, i could went to flickr and look for the pics (that i actually look some tests with no PS on them).
>> Anonymous
>>214127
You can still tell bokeh, etc. right off the bat and if you look at enough of them you can get a feel for the lens itself and mentally filter out things like USM- which, anyway, looks pretty different from just a sharp lens.

Typing in "film" helps, too, since you'll get much less bullshit with that.
>> Anonymous
It's called 70-210 UnSharp Mask, so it is very sharp
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
go with the 70-300 IS USM canon lens, its worth every scent.

unaltered pic

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DLens Size70.00 - 300.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.5Serial Number1030507505Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:11 13:51:32Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating250Lens Aperturef/9.1Exposure Bias-1/3 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length300.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeManualDrive ModeUnknownFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation2Sensor ISO Speed204Color Matrix129
>> Anonymous
>>214147
>scent.
Smells like a winner.
>> Anonymous
>>214147
If i got the money for that lens, i wouldn't buy it, i'd get a 70-200 F4L instead.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>214193
Makes sense in most situations but some people really want the 300mm reach, in which case it's a pretty good choice.
>> Anonymous
>>214364
Gaining 100 mm at the cost of IQ?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>214376
Well, yeah. Like I said, doesn't make sense most of the time, but I know some people who insisted on getting the 300mm end. And they do use it pretty much exclusively at that length - so mission accomplished for them, I guess.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>214378
Uh...get the 100-400 instead? [Assuming affordability.]
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>214407
One is around 1400, the other 550ish. Gee, I wonder which is a better way to get 300/5.6 IS on a budget.
>> Anonymous
Stop trolling. I really need a real opinion on this lens.
>> Anonymous
>It's definitely a sleeper lens in terms of IQ though.

If this is like a "killer" lens or a bad lens, i either didn't understood; would someone explain me the slang?

Thanks
>> Anonymous
>>215213
Sleeper: something that's great but the word hasn"t got around yet that it is, or something that was this but then people learned how awesome it was.

Like a movie that's good but does bad in terms of how well-known/popular/profitable it is when it's first released but over time lots of people hear about its existence and how good it is and buy it on video.
>> Anonymous
>>215230
Thank you very much, kind sir.
>> Anonymous
Come on, only 1 opinion on this lens?
>> Anonymous
>>215406
from what i have heard it is an incredibly sharp lens, and if i were you i would buy it
>> Anonymous
>>215418
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=321565
>> Anonymous
Hello thear
>> Anonymous
Nobody has this lens.

Yay.