File :-(, x, )
ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
/p/, I just got $600 direct-deposited into my bank account by the government, and it is my CIVIC DUTY to spend this on a shiny new toy for myself.

I'm thinkin' EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM to replace the shitty 80-200 I took this picture with this morning.

As an alternate plan, 70-200 f/4L USM. It costs me IS and 100mm, but I get FUCK YEAH WHITE LENS WITH A RED STRIPE, BITCHES and a stop of actual aperture. There's also the issue that I'm not sure the L would fit in my camera bag.

The main thing I use my tele for is taking pictures through my second-floor office window and from my car window, generally in well lit situations, so I think the extra length and the stabilization is more important to me than the extra build quality and extra actual stop. And as for the better optics in the L, well, you've all seen my pictures. I'd say the limiting factor is still behind the focal plan instead of in front of it.

I hate gear threads as much as anyone, so you're encouraged to ignore the lens rambling and tear me apart for the picture.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Lens Size80.00 - 200.00 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:05:02 10:27:45Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardCamera Actuations-234029040Color Matrix34Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224
>> Chib
not much to say about the photo
But.
Vitamin water and ciggarette seems counter-intuitive
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>173637
Get a diet soda with you big mac and supersized fries, it's healthy.
>> Anonymous
>>173636
Being a nikon user, I hate the way canon lenses look so god damn sexy
>> Anonymous
sucks, doesn't even have vignette.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>173640
They've got some white lenses at the telephoto end (at least as an option). You could get one of those and just, I dunno, paint a red stripe around the end.
>> Anonymous
Protip: if your lens is white and you're not a sports photographer, you're wasting you're money on shitty pictures.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>173645
Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
Sounds good, ac. The 70-300 is a lot nicer than it'd seem.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>173640

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern846Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:04:30 11:12:01Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating900Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height398RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>173650
Your my god
>> Anonymous
>>173645
>Protip: if your lens is white and you're not a sports photographer, you're wasting you're money on shitty pictures.
>a sports photographer, you're wasting you're money on shitty
>wasting you're money
>you're
>> Anonymous
the 70-300 fails for many reasons

micro USM
no FTM
build quality is poor, it feels solid in your hands but it's the rings that suck, super loose and not in the good way
and the plastics are cheap, think 18-55 but it feels heavier
it's pretty much dead beyond 200mm
rotating front
extends way too much

with that said, it's a stellar budget zoom that gets you to telephoto range

but this lens is on my short list of could've, should've, would've lenses. as in, unless you desperately need it or don't want to spend more, you could do much better if you would save a little more

this might sound like a lens snob but i've sold too many lenses because of disappointing performance to just buy the one i wanted in the first place at the end

read: save more, get the 70-200 f4 is
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>173664
pointing out others mistakes only to hide ones insecurities.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>173665
>micro USM
>no FTM
Meh. All of my other lenses have buzzy-hornet motors in 'em, so I'm not particularly concerned with that.
>build quality is poor, it feels solid in your hands but it's the rings that suck, super loose and not in the good way
>and the plastics are cheap, think 18-55 but it feels heavier
Still a big step up from what I've got now. And I really don't mind the feel of the 18-55.
>it's pretty much dead beyond 200mm
On the other hand, the 70-200L just flat out doesn't go further than 200mm.
>rotating front
Not a big deal for me. When I do use a polarizer with my rotating-front lenses, I just turn the polarizer after focusing.
>extends way too much
Again, not much of a problem for me.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>173636

Suck, I want my freebie money too! I have to wait until May 9th :(
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>173672
It'll certainly be nice.
>> Anonymous
>>173671

sounds like you're justifying the 70-300 or you just plain don't want the other one

if you're not the type to regret it later on then go right ahead
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>173678
>sounds like you're justifying the 70-300 or you just plain don't want the other one
Hmm... Kind of.

Basically, I'm asking to see if anyone can come up with a reason why the 70-300 would be worse for me personally to the point that it outweighs the benefits. Like if someone has a report that 50% of the copies fall apart after two hours of use, or it won't focus closer than three miles, or something like that. So it is a "Try to convince me why the 70-200L is materially better, but you've got an uphill struggle" rather than just "Which should I get, 70-300 or 70-200L?" type thread.
>> Anonymous
Three things:

1. Just because your lens isn't the limiting factor on your photographs doesn't mean a different lens won't make them better, or at least accentuate the good in them. Look at it like is: you said (in the car wreck thread) you'd been working on learning when to underexpose. While underexposing didn't make you David Alan Harvey, it did help the pictures. Getting an L lens won't make you James Nachtwey, but it might help the pictures. Or it might not.

2. Still, between the two, you'll probably get more out of the 70-300.

3. I've heard you talk about getting an 85 or 28 alot in the past. Thought about one of those?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
The 70-300 is decent quality for their non-L lenses. You're not going to get it and think it's a toy or something when you hold it. IS is very nice to have at 300mm. It has good image quality for the money from what I've seen.

The 70-200L can take TCs as well, which is a nice thing to extent its usefulness and give it a comparable range as the other lens that way. It's hard turn down a cheap L.

As an alternative: The 55-250 is also pretty good from what I've seen and much cheaper (perhaps you could spend the excess on another toy? A FFL lens?). Not quite as nice as the 70-300 though.

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is very good although it'd require a little more saving.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>173688
I have considered getting the 50/1.4 and the 28/1.8 to replace my 50/1.8 and 35/2.0 (since that would work out to about the same amount of money, especially if I sell the 35/2.0 and 50/1.8), but I'm honestly reasonably happy with my short fast prime setup right now. Like those would be nice to have, but wouldn't give me nearly as much benefit as getting a better quality telephoto would.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>173701
>As an alternative: The 55-250 is also pretty good
Also has the disadvantage that it's EF-S, though. I still have high hopes for getting a 5D Mk II when (if) they actually exist one day, and I use a full-frame film EOS right now.

>The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is very good although it'd require a little more saving.
That brings up the issue that I'm a total brandwhore for Canon lenses. The last third-party lens I used didn't work right on my XT, so I'm iffy about buying lenses from manufacturers who reverse engineer EF rather than just plain engineering EF.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>173712
the 70-300 is actually a pretty good performer. If you really want it, i don't think you'll be dissapointed.
>> Anonymous
>>173791
How soft is the 70-300 at 300? I remember way back in the day I had the original and hated the softness of it full zoom.

>>173636
You won't be disappointed by a 70-200 f/4 L. I owned one before the upgrade to the 2.8. Yea it likes a lot of light but the images are tack sharp. Don't worry about IS on the f/4. If you're going to spend the money on that, you're better off getting the 2.8 for the same amount.
>> Anonymous
Get the white lens, ac, you know you want it. If you follow logic over your heart, you`ll end up regretting it. Besides, the second hand price of white lenses are generally higher than their non-white counterparts, so you can always sell it for less of a loss than you`d do with a pink lens, if you change your mind later.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>173838
That is a valid argument...
>> Anonymous
L

do it, faggot