|
RobbieKB
Original Poster
5,402 posts
53 months
|
dibbly dobbler said: Rob - you could try Neil P, he's not one for rules   I might drop him an email.
|
|
|
JulianHJ
6,657 posts
132 months
|
Robbie, I wasn't trying to be awkward, but I had no way of letting you know who he was, whilst sticking to TP rules. As such, I've PM-ed the chap and sent him a link to this thread. He got back to me instantly and said he was signing up to PH. 
|
|
|
JulianHJ
6,657 posts
132 months
|
Robbie, you have a PM... 
|
|
|
RobbieKB
Original Poster
5,402 posts
53 months
|
JulianHJ said: Robbie, I wasn't trying to be awkward, but I had no way of letting you know who he was, whilst sticking to TP rules. As such, I've PM-ed the chap and sent him a link to this thread. He got back to me instantly and said he was signing up to PH. No I know mate, that's why I didn't ask again. I don't want to get you banned from a forum you use for me. Thank you for PMing him, I really appreciate it. :cheers:
|
|
|
smartypants
17,794 posts
39 months
|
Recently bought the IS version of this lens, and love it. The quality is outstanding. Not sure how it differs from the non-IS version though (apart from not having IS!)... but just get it bought!
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
RobbieKB
Original Poster
5,402 posts
53 months
|
smartypants said: Recently bought the IS version of this lens, and love it. The quality is outstanding. Not sure how it differs from the non-IS version though (apart from not having IS!)... but just get it bought! I've seen some example images and even at 100% crop it's practically noiseless. I read some articles about the difference between the IS and non-IS and it isn't that much. Obviously IS would be nice. I'm picking it up tomorrow afternoon, so tomorrow is a write-off work wise I'm thinking about getting the teleconverter 1.4x. AF still works and you don't lose much quality really, just moves up to F/5.6.
|
|
|
smartypants
17,794 posts
39 months
|
It really is superb, haha enjoy!
|
|
|
Jag-D
19,574 posts
89 months
|
Sigma 100-300 F4
Although saying that, I was faced with this very dilemma a few years ago and ended up choosing the 70-200F4L...
Yeah it's a little light on the zoom, but it's as sharp as a sharp thing, it's fast, it's light, it's absolutely amazing and I've used it for weddings, products, motorsport and portraits without a single problem.
I also had a 100-400F4 trombone which I used for one trackday then sold the bloody thing
Oh FYI, I use a 1.4x TC on the F4L and don't have a problem although you will loose AF with a 2x
|
|
|
RobbieKB
Original Poster
5,402 posts
53 months
|
Jag-D said: Sigma 100-300 F4
Although saying that, I was faced with this very dilemma a few years ago and ended up choosing the 70-200F4L...
Yeah it's a little light on the zoom, but it's as sharp as a sharp thing, it's fast, it's light, it's absolutely amazing and I've used it for weddings, products, motorsport and portraits without a single problem.
I also had a 100-400F4 trombone which I used for one trackday then sold the bloody thing
Oh FYI, I use a 1.4x TC on the F4L and don't have a problem although you will loose AF with a 2x Thank you for the reply mate. I picked up the 70-200mm F4 L yesterday and I've had a brief play but it has been hammering it down consistently. The difference in quality compared to my (brace yourself) 75-300mm is borderline ridiculous, I should post a comparison. I ordered a Kenko 1.4x TC to bump it to 280mm. F/5.6 should be fine even for wildlife and to be honest, 200mm is a little limiting. Still it will probably be my go-to lens for a while like it seems to be for you.
|
|
|
DavidCane
708 posts
111 months
|
Robbie, if you could post comparison shots that would be really useful. I'll be looking to get a longer lens later this year and am weighing up the 55-250, 75-300 or the 70-200 f4. Obviously a fair of range of price there, so I'd love to see exactly how the same scene differs between the cheaper and best lenses in this group.
|
|
|
RobbieKB
Original Poster
5,402 posts
53 months
|
DavidCane said: Robbie, if you could post comparison shots that would be really useful. I'll be looking to get a longer lens later this year and am weighing up the 55-250, 75-300 or the 70-200 f4. Obviously a fair of range of price there, so I'd love to see exactly how the same scene differs between the cheaper and best lenses in this group. I'll happily do that and post it up, but please, do not buy the 75-300! ...  ...or you could buy mine of course.
|
|
|
DavidCane
708 posts
111 months
|
My mistake, I should have said 70-300 IS USM, 55-250 and the 70-200f4 that I was considering. Not the 75-300
|
|
|
curtisl
1,145 posts
76 months
|
Not that it needs anymore votes but the 70-200 F4L amazes me. I swapped a 10-20mm sigma + £50 for one on TP and I am so happy I did. The clarity, colours and sharpness do not fail me, the focus is pretty swift. I wish I had the F2.8 IS but for the money the F4 is supurb. If you do manage to get it, I am sure you wont regret it. Here's a few samples. Relatively low light  IMG_1274 by Lee Curtis photography, on Flickr At full Stretch  IMG_0963 by Lee Curtis photography, on Flickr Sharp as I could want  IMG_2934 by fmxgb, on Flickr
|
|
|
Jag-D
19,574 posts
89 months
|
DavidCane said: My mistake, I should have said 70-300 IS USM, 55-250 and the 70-200f4 that I was considering. Not the 75-300 Night and day mate. The comparison is shocking! The F4 is a beautiful lens and one that's never leaving my company. IL'm kinda glad I only paid £380 for it though as it's gone up in price a bit hehe
|
|
|
Jag-D
19,574 posts
89 months
|
|
|
JABB
3,182 posts
106 months
|
There is, and I have one, a 70 - 200 F4 std lens ( Not L ) which in some reviews, gets as good a write up as the L glass, without the waterproofing and price tag. Not IS either.
Cracking lens. Ebay around £100+, if you can find one!
|
|
