Look at the bargains available today in my little home town:
1.4
or
http://hamilton.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-cameras-camcorders-2-CANON-CAMERAS-AND-LENSES-W0QQAdIdZ37116015
Alex
georgiadis.googlepages.com
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:13 AM, <fotofx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Russ,
My suggestion is to save your pennies and get the 70-200 2.8L (with or without IS) used.
If you keep buying lenses that won't *exactly* fit your subject matter you will have spent the cash over time.
The Non IS version can often be found on fredmiranda.com, sportsshooter.com, photography-on-the.net/forums and photo.net for sale around
$800.00. This is usually because owners of the non IS version are upgrading to the newer IS version and need to supplement that purchase.
IS works fantastic, and it does allow for shots not really possible prior to it's invention. It renders images sharp when used properly.
I once took a macro shot of a mushroom, after sunset with a 300 2.8IS w/ extension tube hand held, razor sharp. ISO 100 fuji.
Contact my friends at borrowlenses.com and set up a rentsl.
Les Baldwin
Foto/SFX
-----Original Message-----
>From: rebphoto <rebphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Feb 14, 2008 9:17 PM
>To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Canon Lens suggestion.........one more time
>
>Hi Gang..............
>
>A while back I bought a Tamron XR Di 28-200mm 3.8-5.6 lens.
>
>In the Studio it seem to be sharp.
>
>This is also where I have lots of
>light and the lens is stopped down.
>
>I shoot a lot of theatre photography.
>
>Generally the lens wide open..........
>
>In this instance the lens doesn't seem
>to give me sharp photos. At first I thought
>that it may have been due to subject movement,
>but closer inspection shows that this isn't the case.
>
>It's almost like the lens isn't focusing quite right.
>
>A friend of mine has the Canon 28-135mm 3.5-5.6
>lens with the image stabilization and loves it.
>
>KEH has some good prices on some used ones.
>
>Now I am shooting on a tripod where the
>stabilization isn't going to be any benefit for me.
>
>And I can not afford an L Series Lens.
>
>I have read some reviews that tell me that the
>Canon lens with the image stabilization isn't
>all that sharp...............
>
>Anyone have any suggestions for a good lens
>that doesn't cost a fortune that will be sharp?
>
>(yep we have had this discussion a while ago.....)
>
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Russ
>R.E. Baker
>Photography
>rebphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>Feed a Cat...
>Starve a Fever........
>
>
>
>
>
--
Alex Georgiadis
