[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by navin

Ref: Image. What are those white spots? water droplets?
Ref: 11-16. You mean the 11-16/2.8 is only for APS-C digital or will it cover FF digital too?

The 55-250 IS is better VFM than the 70-300. The 70-300 might be a better lens. For that matter if you are mostly shooting f/8+ the 70-300 is more than adequate even when compared to the 70-200/2.8 IS. The bigger lens however is superb when you are operating in bad light or very high shutter speeds (you have to sacrifice DOF though).

11-16 is meant for APS-C sensors afaik and not for full frame. The reason why I want the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a better lens is sharpness and also the creamy smooth bokeh. The low light capabilities are not that much of a concern to me. The f/2.8 does also mean that one doesn't lose AF when using a 2x teleconverter.

[kb100]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

11-16 is meant for APS-C sensors afaik and not for full frame. The reason why I want the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a better lens is sharpness and also the creamy smooth bokeh. The low light capabilities are not that much of a concern to me. The f/2.8 does also mean that one doesn't lose AF when using a 2x teleconverter.

Too many people saying the 70-200 f4.0 IS is MUCH MUCH better @ 4.0 onwards than the f2.8 - not to mention the weight savings as well. Since India is a bright sunny country, if the bulk of your shots are going to be outdoor, then the F4.0 version may be much better (and cheaper).

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by kb100

Too many people saying the 70-200 f4.0 IS is MUCH MUCH better @ 4.0 onwards than the f2.8 - not to mention the weight savings as well. Since India is a bright sunny country, if the bulk of your shots are going to be outdoor, then the F4.0 version may be much better (and cheaper).

Not sure if I can agree to that. But anyway the F/4 is limited to just the 1.4x teleconverter as the 2x won't autofocus. So not really the best option.

Since you asked, here are some other shots from the 55-250

YouSendIt - Send large files - transfer delivery - FTP Replacement

[kb100]

Thanks ROC - got it!!

Guess this is max bang for the buck ! And I guess colour and saturation also has to do with sunlight!. Photos taken in the tropics seem more contrasty than the ones in Europe etc.

[reignofchaos]

Well the trouble in the US/Europe is the lack of light. In India we fight the overabundance of it by using filters .

[given2fly]

Folks Folks,

I think my question has genuinely gone OT. I am sold on 70-200 F4 because for me optical quality is more important than length. And then, I can always get the 1.4 extender which will cost me 289$ but I can then retain it for other lenses also. Besides that, as soon as you mount any lens on Tripod, the IS turns itself off. So no point for an IS lens there for Guillivers Travels. Also, a non-L lens may not have the same build quality (sturdiness & weather-sealing) and that is why I have nudged 70-300 out of my list.

I am going to complement this one with a Tamron 28-75 for now which will be added it a little later to my repetoire as putting my camera funds completely into F4. My main question was "Is a 6 month old lens with US warranty good & for how much"? I think 23 should be good given the fact that L lens is known to hold its value. Also when I would like to upgrade to F2.8 or F4 with IS later, say one year, how much can I expect?

PS: I request you all not to drag 55-250 & 70-300 again but give me related valuable suggestion. Your advice will be very crucial in helping my purchase.

PS-2: KB-100 had suggested 18-20K for the given lens. I would like to know why do you think that is good for a rather unused lens.

[given2fly]

While watching IPL & EPL matches, I saw many pros sitting with the white lens which is of course Canon. What kind of lens would they use which could take all those stunning photographs we see in color in news papers & mags. I mean, do they use Prime lens (300 / 400 mm) or 70-200 or 100-400 lenses?

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Gill

friends,getting Fuji s9600 for 15.8 k and Canon S5 for 15k,on the internet reviews one major cons for fuji is absence of IS,and one major pros for S5 is excellent auto mode capabilities,but overall fuji has better lens and sensor,and manual zoom ring!
advice plz.

One more thing,How much authentic are pics posted on flickr.com,are they really clicked by the camera they are posted under or it can be otherwise???
I liked the S5 pics more then s9600 on flickr,but the internet reviews says 9600 is far better.

S5 and S9600 are pretty close in IQ. So it depends on photographer.
But if IS is not important for you 9600 is definitely better
The Fuji sensor gives richer colors and lower noise and the camera is better.
I normally look at dpreview and imaging-resource reviews for into.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by given2fly

While watching IPL & EPL matches, I saw many pros sitting with the white lens which is of course Canon. What kind of lens would they use which could take all those stunning photographs we see in color in news papers & mags. I mean, do they use Prime lens (300 / 400 mm) or 70-200 or 100-400 lenses?

Well the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 are pretty well used sports lenses especially in low light. There's a 200 f/2 out as well which might be splendid for sports.

Coming to the 70-200 f/4L... well it has its uses for someone who's always gonna put it on a tripod. Its not very usable handheld... atleast to me. I'd definitely not suggest a consumer zoom compared to it as the 70-200 is a far better lens. Also do be aware that some copies have severe backfocus issues on rebel bodies. No such issues on Prosumer/Pro bodies. Just for the record this lens sells for 27 in grey in India brand new.

[kb100]

Originally Posted by given2fly

Folks Folks,

I think my question has genuinely gone OT. I am sold on 70-200 F4 because for me optical quality is more important than length. And then, I can always get the 1.4 extender which will cost me 289$ but I can then retain it for other lenses also. Besides that, as soon as you mount any lens on Tripod, the IS turns itself off. So no point for an IS lens there for Guillivers Travels. Also, a non-L lens may not have the same build quality (sturdiness & weather-sealing) and that is why I have nudged 70-300 out of my list.

I am going to complement this one with a Tamron 28-75 for now which will be added it a little later to my repetoire as putting my camera funds completely into F4. My main question was "Is a 6 month old lens with US warranty good & for how much"? I think 23 should be good given the fact that L lens is known to hold its value. Also when I would like to upgrade to F2.8 or F4 with IS later, say one year, how much can I expect?

PS: I request you all not to drag 55-250 & 70-300 again but give me related valuable suggestion. Your advice will be very crucial in helping my purchase.

PS-2: KB-100 had suggested 18-20K for the given lens. I would like to know why do you think that is good for a rather unused lens.

Hey Given2fly - sorry - did not mean to ignore anyone!!

Let me tell you my logic with a precursor*** to each his own***

You will battle two choices - If you look at the shots out of both - most of them concur that one stop down there is not much between both of them - as in even the pixel peepers have not been able to call it accurately (from what I read/see on the net)

Secondly - you WILL find the IS more helpful than the speed at the extreme ends of the zoom - in other words - unless you plan to lug that tripod everywhere , the chances are the 70-300IS might just give you more 'keeper' shots - courtesy the IS, than the 70-200 F4.0 with the 1.4 teleconverter ever will. (almost the same reach - 300mm Vs 280mm respectively).

Lastly the only arrangement that 'might' better this one - will be the 70-200 f2.8 IS with the 2X teleconverter - because the speed of that lens will take it to 560mm without losing the AF facility - not to mention the IS is already there!!.. But this will cost you a clear $1700/- PLUS $280 for the converter - or so! (85-90K is a hell of lot of money for birds - the 'poses' they give better be 'worth' it!!)

For everyone using tripods ONLY- the non IS version of all there lenses are available at a clear $500 less!

Originally Posted by given2fly

PS-2: KB-100 had suggested 18-20K for the given lens. I would like to know why do you think that is good for a rather unused lens.

Lastly to specifically answer this question I have a rationale -or two- to put forward -

1. The only thing that passes through the lens is LIGHT - therefore no one can say its any worse for the wear! (No wear & tear)

2. Having said that its what conditions it might have been subjected to during use, and storage, that will make the difference.

This lens is available - Brand New -for $ 560 + shipping - say about $580 landed in the US - which is around Rs.24.5k (landed)! Therefore 18-20 may be a reasonable 'used' rate - each man to his own, I have given you mine!

Used prices are always governed by basic 'demand & supply' principles. End of the day everything depends on the buyers' 'sentiment's!

[kb100]

Originally Posted by kb100

Lastly the only arrangement that 'might' better this one - will be the 70-200 f2.8 IS with the 2X teleconverter - because the speed of that lens will take it to 560mm without losing the AF facility - not to mention the IS is already there!!

Sorry - Oversight --

The 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter will take it to 400mm! And this combination on a 1.6 crop body will take it to 640mm!!

[Samurai]

Adding 2X converter to your best lens is like hitching a trailer to a Mustang. Unless you desperately need extra zoom, it should not be done.

[Steeroid]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Adding 2X converter to your best lens is like hitching a trailer to a Mustang.

Nicely put!

Why do I sense that this thread is heading down the same route as kb ka db?

[tsk1979]

Agree with Samurai here.
Its better to get the 100-400L lens from canon instead of teleconvertor.
2x will rob 2 stops of light and AF will not work unless the TC lies to the body about the aperture.

[kb100]

Originally Posted by Steeroid

Nicely put!

Why do I sense that this thread is heading down the same route as kb ka db?

NEVER!!...

I was on a holiday for 3 weeks - so got an opportunity to do hours and hours of research - about 12-14 hrs a day - all this 'knowledge' stems from that. But I am clear I will not 'understand' anything till such time I actually experiment practically and experience it.

Rudra's words of wisdom ring loud and clear - I intend to fully juice out my Sigma 17-70 before I even firm up on what I need next.

The only thing I may be willing to consider in the interim is the 55-250 IS - but even that I have clearly put off till I see which way the learning-curve 'curves' .