DSLRUsers.com

Hi All, Well i have been looking and see this lens popup now and then.
I could be looking to add another lens to my new camera gear but not sure what would be good for my bucks, i know 70-200 f2.8 vr would be nice but yeh just curious as the 70-300g is ok to learn and start with but for that xtra reach would be nice, and what about using a teleconverter?

Just a thought for future refferance.
Thanks
John

G'day,
I started with the Sigma 70-300 APO II, thought that was good but the VR in the 80-400 means I'm keeping shots that I would previously have binned due to shaky-hand blur.
Also, the extra reach of the 400 really does make a big difference...
The 70-200 being an f2.8 is a faster lens (and it's USM I think, rather than body focus so the focus should be pretty snappy), but to me the extra reach was important so that made the decision for me. You could use a tele-conv to increase the reach of the 70-200 tho if you wanted the faster lens, but I think that'll lose at least one stop of light.

Other more experienced members will give their advice.

Cheers,
Mudder

mudder wrote:The 70-200 being an f2.8 is a faster lens (and it's USM I think, rather than body focus so the focus should be pretty snappy)

Please, it's AF-S. Or SWM if you must... but let's steer clear of Canon nomenclature here. VR, not IS. AF-S, not USM!!

Onyx wrote:

mudder wrote:The 70-200 being an f2.8 is a faster lens (and it's USM I think, rather than body focus so the focus should be pretty snappy)

Please, it's AF-S. Or SWM if you must... but let's steer clear of Canon nomenclature here. VR, not IS. AF-S, not USM!!

Onyx,

A bit crusty today ......

Whoops...

Wash my mouth out, blasphemy!
Hail mary, hail mary, hail mary....


Damn TLAs (now is that a two letter acronym, a three letter acronym, maybe twelve...)

Cheers,
Mudder
Spose I was asking for that wasn't I...

 LOL Mudder, Ok can u give me a link to some of pics mate if you have any up somewhere, and what sort of cost are we looking at with lens, i know birdy had the 70-200 F2.8 for around $1,800 not long ago but yeh just curious.Thanks mate
John

It's been mentioned that the 70-400 is not AF-S/SWM This means that the body rotates instead of the internal mechanism, yes?

So if you had a filter.. gradiated(?) .. where the top blocked more light than the bottom, or the top was tinted but the bottom wasn't, you would need to line up the shot, focus, then adjust the filter yes?

Not always, there are a few AFS lenses that do not rotate when focusing

AFS lenses focus quicker and quieter, that is their main advantage...

and yes, many AFS lenses are internal focusing...

The 70-200 is internal focus and internal zoom... ie always the same length (lust)

G'day BBJ,
I have a few 80-400VR shots at my gallery on pixspot.com (a hosting web-site one of the members here provided, this is a great forum!) but my examples are probably not particularly good examples of what this lens is capable of though. I certainly don't consider myself a photographer, I just have fun taking photos, I still have my "L" plates.

For some 80-400VR shots, have a gander at:
http://www.pixspot.com/thumbnails.php?album=33

Cheers,
Mudder. PS. Wow, the guys are quick here, I was just typing up a reply and several guys have already answered... I gotta learn how to type quicker!

John,

Try this thread

http://forum.d70users.com/admin/index.p ... ee2278897c

hey Gary... that is an admin function

MHD wrote:hey Gary... that is an admin function

mumble ... mumble ...

damn!

Try this one.


http://forum.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=1054

Thanx, and sorry ...

John, it also depends on what you want to use the lens for. This will help determine whether you would be better off with the 70-200 or 80-400 (or even something else).

I personally bought the 80-400vr as I wanted the extra reach for animals/birds. I've been very pleased with it so far. Here's one I took on the weekend with VR on a monopod.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~nicolemelb/Birds/Water%20Fowl/ChestnutTeal18.jpg

Thanks for the info, Nicole i do a lot of pics of motorcycle racing i know the f2.8 lens is the better but yeh not cheap there are a few places at the track where some good shots could be taken but it is also a run off, so to get away from that corner and be in the riders line if they make a Boo Boo or come off need to be far enough away.
I also was looking at some surfing on the weekend with my 70-300 but they was a fair way out. I have also taken a bit of a shy to the bird life as well lately so has got me thinking about another lens, pluss had a call about 1 of my model aeroplanes i have for sale , fella interested so testing the water for a new toy.

What cost are we looking at?
Thanks for shots gary and mudder as well.
Cheers
John