70-200 USM L
- Thread starter macvisual
- Start date
.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
It's a beautiful, cheap, sharp lens.
- Messages
- 588
- Name
- Oliver
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 1,841
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
It is cheap. Under 400 quid for a good used L lens. How bloody cheap do you want it? 
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
IS or non-IS?
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not the 2.8It is cheap. Under 400 quid for a good used L lens. How bloody cheap do you want it?
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry! Missed that completely!
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Sounds a good price. Where can I buy it?
cuthbert
Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew Me Dibble and Grubb
- Messages
- 2,043
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i have one of these. basically, it's an excellent lens. Fast accurate AF, great build and very sharp.
i use it for portraits mainly, but it's a good range for a general lens on a full frame body (although a bit heavy and long for indoors, but out and about, for me, it's perfect). it is heavy but not as heavy as some people make out, as long as your physically able you'll get used to it after a couple of weeks.
Here are a few sample pics.
i use it for portraits mainly, but it's a good range for a general lens on a full frame body (although a bit heavy and long for indoors, but out and about, for me, it's perfect). it is heavy but not as heavy as some people make out, as long as your physically able you'll get used to it after a couple of weeks.
Here are a few sample pics.
- Messages
- 1,841
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You see £900 isn't cheap!
Neither is £400... its still a lot of money.. I think amateur photographers like myself become disillusioned because we start to think that 'oh £400 for a L lens?' cheap!!!
I need help. Full stop.
- Messages
- 7,638
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is a great lens, the only downside I find is that it is quite heavy compared to the f4 version.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Well, I think 400 quid IS cheap for quality glass, but I appreciate it's relative. As a hobbiest it might be different.
- Messages
- 8,536
- Edit My Images
- No
It is cheap. Under 400 quid for a good used L lens. How bloody cheap do you want it?
wishful thinking if you think you can get a canon 70-200 f2.8 L for that price
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
jonneymendoza said:
Perhaps you should read the whole thread.
- Messages
- 8,536
- Edit My Images
- No
sorry hehe.
im going to buy the f2.8 mk2 version soon. its now or never for me. soon i will have a mortgage and kids so no chance of affording a awsome lens like the mk2 but maybe i still can depending on how successful i am in my career
For me i need f2.8 purely for the fact that even during the day when its very cloudy, f4 just cant cut it for me. too slow!
im going to buy the f2.8 mk2 version soon. its now or never for me. soon i will have a mortgage and kids so no chance of affording a awsome lens like the mk2 but maybe i still can depending on how successful i am in my career
For me i need f2.8 purely for the fact that even during the day when its very cloudy, f4 just cant cut it for me. too slow!