File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Some guy wants to sell me this lens for 200 bucks. Currently I have an EOS 400D with the 18-55 kit lens. Worth it? [y/n]
>> Anonymous
it usually goes for 400 bucks iirc, and it's way better, from what I've heard, than its non-is counterpart, which goes for 170 bucks or so. Might be worth it if you want a telephoto.
>> Anonymous
Ask him why he's selling it though
>> Anonymous
70-300s are all shit plastic lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>182629
If you don't have a telephoto and are on a budget it might be worth it. But I agree, they're pretty average. Mine is only ok at around f8 to f11. Also you need a fast shutter to avoid hand shake - faster than 1/500 on a crop if you're at full zoom. So basically its only usable on a sunny day.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>182632
That IS the non-IS counterpart. Shit sucks.

>>182639
The 70-300IS is a little plasticy, but it's in the mid-tier of Canon build quality (at around 50/1.4 level, above kit lens and below L) and has pretty good image quality for the price. Then there's the 70-300DO IS, and you'd be an idiot to call that a shit plastic lens.
>> Anonymous
>>182632it usually goes for 400 bucks iirc, and it's way better, from what I've heard, than its non-is counterpart,

lol wut

there's a 75-300, a 75-300 IS, a 70-300 IS

the one pictured is a 75-300 and is worth $150 new, and no it's not better than the IS version.

>>18263970-300s are all shit plastic lenses.

the 70-300 IS rivals the 70-200 f/4 L, sorry
>> Anonymous
>>183115the 70-300 IS rivals the 70-200 f/4 L, sorry

No.
>> Anonymous
>>183140

i'm sorry, it matches the 70-200 f/4 L at every FL and is only bad past 200 where the 70-200 doesn't even go
>> Anonymous
>>183189
FL != Quality. The 70-300 suffers from extreme softness the longer the focal length.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>183115
>the 70-300 IS rivals the 70-200 f/4 L, sorry

stop talking out of your ass
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>183206FL != Quality. The 70-300 suffers from extreme softness the longer the focal length.

again, only past 200, where the 70-200 does not even reach

>>183209stop talking out of your ass

of all the people on /p/, you're one of the first to talk out of your ass

i am sorry if a "black" lens matches a L and that you can't accept that

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2005:12:21 13:17:06Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1171Image Height764
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2005:12:21 13:27:51Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1471Image Height960
>> Anonymous
>>183214
>>183215

Sharpness isn't the only measure of a lens. Besides, from the pics you posted the 70-200 f/4 is substantially sharper at the edge of the frame. Build quality is superior on the 70-200 as well.
>> Anonymous
these are small 100% crops of the frame, you would have to look twice before seeing a difference, only for pixel peepers

it still matches it pretty damn spot on, unless you're one of those guys who's looking for that magical "pop"

i didn't say anything about build quality

just pointing out to people considering both to think long and hard and not automatically go LOL L LENS

hell, ac is getting the 70-300 instead of the L
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>183214
you have no clue what you're talking about
or are a blindfag
>> Anonymous
>>183289

wow, can you be any more of a faggot?

the 70-300 matches the 70-200 on every sample, minus the second image right edge crop and less contrast

>> you have no clue what you're talking about

all you have ever prove on here is that you're a Photoshop kiddie

should i go find the beethy front on flash picture? because obviously, you're a master at photography
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>183290
I've used both lenses you speak of.. and in most cases the image quality is quite different.
This isn't just my experience, but the majority of people who've posted reviews and samples all over the net.
I guess it's your shitty uneducated opinion against everyone else's
Cry more
>> Anonymous
>>183296Cry more

what? i just posted a goddamn test to prove my point

you're going on your personal experience with nothing to prove it

>> I guess it's your shitty uneducated opinion against everyone else's

can you be any more of a little fucking bitch? goddamn

this is me posting examples, against you with nothing

i'm sorry, fucking bitch
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>183299
did you ever consider that your L lens is below standard quality?
Guess not.

I don't need to look for samples and show 100% crop samples, and have some shitty lame pixel argument with a faggot like yourself.
I'm sure that's your idea of fun though.
I believe there is a significant IQ difference in an L lens vs a standard lens. You don't, you think they're the same.
Lets leave it at that, you giant cocksucking faggot fucker
>> Anonymous
>>183301
hahahahaha
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>183301did you ever consider that your L lens is below standard quality?

did you ever consider your 70-300 was below standard quality?

see how that works?

and also notice how you automatically assume L is better?

>> I don't need to look for samples and show 100% crop samples

that is because you automatically assume L is better, AM I RITE?

>> I believe there is a significant IQ difference in an L lens vs a standard lens.

again, based on your own experience, your word.

just humor me then, based on these samples please tell me how exactly they differ, other than the things i mentioned.

please don't just go "i don't have time to fuck with this" or any kind of reply like that, just humor me

and also, bear in mind that if you do choose to answer it, you're getting into the pixel peeping game and last time i checked "good" photographers don't pixel peep

>> You don't, you think they're the same.

hah, remember that talk we had about the 70-200 2.8 IS?

i buy nothing but the best, 17-55 2.8 IS and 70-200 2.8 IS

i just don't like when idiots get all gay for L just because it's L
>> Anonymous
Full photo sharpness is still more than enough reason to take the L over that lens any day
>> Anonymous
>>183313

more like, constant f/4 and ring USM with FTM

sharpness is never an issue, unless of course you're a pixel peeper ;-)

but IS on the 70-300 is a big plus
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
Alright guys why don't we look at it this way. The 70-200/4L is definitely better than the 70-300IS, but if you need the IS or the extra 100mm the 70-300IS is not a bad choice, and can perform quite respectably.

The L has better build and full time manual, and the other lens has IS so they both have extra things to consider that might sway a buyer either way. Otherwise I can't see image quality being a make-or-break factor. Would you really say "well fuck the edge softness at 100% really ruined that shot I wish I had gotten the L instead"?

Goddammit /p/ even Ken Rockwell is seeming more sensible than you guys today.
>> Anonymous
>>183445
Well, I had a couple shots ruined by corner softness of my old kit lens once when I wanted to stitch a panorama from them. But I guess this is totally irrelevant to the 70-300IS vs. 70-200L question.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>183445
AF speed / accuracy will make or break a purchase. Especially if you plan on using it for sports, as will the extra light advantage.

I've always been more impressed with the f4 IS version than the F2.8 non IS version (not sure of the IS version on the f2.8 lens is any better image quality wise). Not sure how the AF speed performs, but it will be guarunteed faster than the 70-300!
>> Anonymous
>>183304
Uhh, you can't really judge a lens from 100% crops, you know. There's something called edge softness. That's also why the difference is obvious in the tire crop, because it's closer to the edge. Even a fag could see that. Also, these are taken with average and normal day lightning etc. I'd like to see them compared with something more extreme. And there's still a difference in contrast in those crops. Also, haven't used any of those lenses and am a pentax-fag, but if you can't understand this test is fucking flawed and can't see the difference, gtfo.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>183490
this
>> Anonymous
>>183490

Pentaxfag should be out taking pictures, amirite?
>> Anonymous
>>183527
Wrote that after I got back from a shoot, lol.
>> Anonymous
>>183490Uhh, you can't really judge a lens from 100% crops, you know. There's something called edge softness. That's also why the difference is obvious in the tire crop, because it's closer to the edge.

i've acknowledged that one crop where the L has the edge

>> the 70-300 matches the 70-200 on every sample, minus the second image right edge crop and less contrast

>> Even a fag could see that.

yeah, a pixel peeping fag, i had to specifically crop out different sections for you to see that difference

you would have to incredibly anal to be judging this kind of thing on an entire frame

and serenar said it well

>> Otherwise I can't see image quality being a make-or-break factor. Would you really say "well fuck the edge softness at 100% really ruined that shot I wish I had gotten the L instead"?

what's incredible is that faggot beethy starts bullshit about how it's not at the pixel peeping level and yet uses pixel peeping to prove the L is better

on an a somewhat related note, notice how beethy is a goddamn coward about posting here?

i lay facts first using the crop samples, he doesn't reply for a long while. an anon makes a post in his favor, he shows his face again

i prove my point yet again in>>183304
he doesn't show his face until another anon helps him out

but hey, maybe he's busy with "real life"
>> Anonymous
also ANOTHER instance of him being a goddamn faggot that i just remembered

in a thread with Depressed Cheesecake about the MacBook with "faster" RAM

i make a post saying he's a goddamn retard for thinking that, beethy comes in, again, saying "you don't know what you're talking about"

i proceed to prove my point, Depressed Cheesecake weasels out

no post anymore from beethy, until i call him out for being a faggot and explain how i'm "wrong"

and he comes back saying he was busy

goddamn, motherfuckers
>> Anonymous
if i used that lens as a dildo, i would have a very loose vagina
>> Anonymous
>>183755
Pics?
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>183751
>>183753
haha take it easy man
just let it gooooooo
i disagree with your opinion, try to accept that... it's bound to happen more than once
>> Anonymous
why dont you get the radioshack alternative for like 109 bucks
>> Anonymous
>>183789

You talk a lot of shit about things you know nothing about and end up teaching the wrong things to everyone else. Better that you just STFU instead and learn from the masters.
>> Anonymous
heh, look at all the little fags who buy their gear at best buy trying to tell us how awesome the 70-300 is.
>> Anonymous
>>184329
BUT IT'S ULTRASONIC
>> Anonymous
id consider buying the nikon 70-300 G for $110 off adorama ftl

but I already have the 80-200 2.8 AF-S so I won't
>> Anonymous
>>183751
Dude, you can't just acknowledge just that crop. I just fucking told you you can't only judge on crops, since this lens obviously has very soft corners compaired to the L glass. You'd need full-sized pictures to check, but you haven't posted those and I assume you didn't due to the fact they fail.