mistercheapo said: Greatest lens ever made despite being heavier than rocks.
LOL, you are correct about this! I use monopod with mine when shooting my kids' sports events.
patrick835
Senior Member
posted: May. 9, 2009 @ 11:08a
casdf said: there are times I wish I wasn't on the Nikon system this is one of those times... then why ppl keep switching to Nikon? i have both
Dilligas
Broke Member
posted: May. 9, 2009 @ 12:51p
king0fSpades said: Yes you can do better from eBay, but that is eBay right?
Ah, eBay is the great dumping grounds for lenses that have all sorts of issues. Don't be fooled into thinking that white lenses are all perfect off the line (lemons are rare, but do happen). On the flip side though, the percentage of bad lenses on eBay is still pretty low (IMHO) until you start getting into the Sigma, Tokina, etc. brands that have worse quality control.
Dilligas said: king0fSpades said: Yes you can do better from eBay, but that is eBay right?
Ah, eBay is the great dumping grounds for lenses that have all sorts of issues. Don't be fooled into thinking that white lenses are all perfect off the line (lemons are rare, but do happen). On the flip side though, the percentage of bad lenses on eBay is still pretty low (IMHO) until you start getting into the Sigma, Tokina, etc. brands that have worse quality control.I've gotten countless lenses from eBay and Craigslist - I've only had problem with 2 of them: one a Quantaray 50mm lens that was simply dead, and a Sigma wide angle zoom that still worked but was obviously abused and not "like new, used only for 3 times".
Finally mine got shipped from J&R. Man there credit verification is a problem. I had to give them my landline phone number. Add that to my credit card. Had to go home from work and call them from home for verification. They said, order is over $1000 and we have to verify everything.
lcong said: They have good price on Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro too, $455 before the 5% live CashBack. Too bad it's also OOS.excellent lens. i tried to find one for $350 when circuit city closed but couldn't find any. many in the photography forums found them at the $350 price which surprisingly, wasn't marked down that much from cc's reg. price which was much lower than anyone else's.
Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
tpatana
Senior Member
posted: May. 13, 2009 @ 11:59a
king0fSpades said: Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
I'll buy it from you, but I'll pay only 50% of J&R's price, as you seem to have bad copy
(I just envy you guys, I have to do with my 55-250 IS lens, which is not bad (especially for the price), but,... it's not L, and it's not 2.8)
king0fSpades said: Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
momoman said: lcong said: They have good price on Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro too, $455 before the 5% live CashBack. Too bad it's also OOS.excellent lens. i tried to find one for $350 when circuit city closed but couldn't find any. many in the photography forums found them at the $350 price which surprisingly, wasn't marked down that much from cc's reg. price which was much lower than anyone else's.
cc was a scam !
waisted too much time and didn't buy much
Money5555
Member
posted: May. 13, 2009 @ 12:20p
king0fSpades said: Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
The obvious advantages with this lens are the f/2.8 and IS (extra 3 stop). If you don't need f2.8, maybe consider f/4 IS (4 stops). This is Canon's best 70-200 lenses in term of IQ, sharpness, etc. I have the f/2.8IS lens for over 2 years and haven't used my 135L since. Granted the 135L has better IQ, bokeh, color, etc, but not that much better.
tpatana
Senior Member
posted: May. 13, 2009 @ 12:32p
Money5555 said: king0fSpades said: Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
The obvious advantages with this lens are the f/2.8 and IS (extra 3 stop). If you don't need f2.8, maybe consider f/4 IS (4 stops). This is Canon's best 70-200 lenses in term of IQ, sharpness, etc. I have the f/2.8IS lens for over 2 years and haven't used my 135L since. Granted the 135L has better IQ, bokeh, color, etc, but not that much better.
Sounds like your 135L is defective. I'll buy it from you (for cheap)
Crap, I hate you guys, seems like I'm the only FWer without any L
cyberock
Member
posted: May. 13, 2009 @ 12:41p
king0fSpades said: Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
This lens is very popular with wedding photographers for exactly what you described. Shallow DOF at 2.8 so you get a nice bokeh behind your subject. It also gives you a little softer picture so you don't see all the blemishes on your subject's face. I have this lens for doing portrait photography an dthen I also have the 70-200 IS f/4 for doing my landscape and everyday photography since it weighs so much less for carrying around.
nyhteg
Happy Member
posted: May. 13, 2009 @ 12:53p
MISURICK said: king0fSpades said: Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
momoman said: lcong said: They have good price on Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro too, $455 before the 5% live CashBack. Too bad it's also OOS.excellent lens. i tried to find one for $350 when circuit city closed but couldn't find any. many in the photography forums found them at the $350 price which surprisingly, wasn't marked down that much from cc's reg. price which was much lower than anyone else's.Maybe my expectations are not realistic but I finally got my hands on a 100mm f/2.8 macro USM over the past weekend and I gotta say I am kind of disappointed with it. My beef with it is mainly in the build and focusing department. The build feels kind of cheap for a normally $500 lens, feels like there is a bit of play in the assembly. The auto focus is also not as quick or quiet as the USM designation would lead one to believe. The focus hunts and I was using a 5D MKII body, so I don't think it's an issue with using out-dated body/firmware. The focusing does lock and when it does, it's incredibly spot-on, as is necessary by it's 100mm focal length, f/2.8, and macro capabilities. It just takes a while to get there. Taking a picture of a bristle brush, for example, will have the lens going back and forth endlessly as it tries to decide which strand of bristle it should focus on - this is with only the center focus point activated.
What it comes down to is this: for the same ~$500, the 70-200mm f/4L USM has top-notch build quality and first class autofocus speeds. Here you are spending the same $500 on a 100mm prime, I would expect a pretty well built lens with excellent autofocus performance.
nyhteg said: MISURICK said: king0fSpades said: Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
ask for an exchange
Sounds to me the lens is functioning properly.Yea, sounds like it's working well to me too. The f/2.8L was probably just a poor match for the user's needs. I tried one for a while and decided not to keep it, and got a f/4L instead. Aside from being lighter and smaller, the f/4L is also sharper. But there are people out there for whom the f/2.8L is indispensible.
Lugged this thing on a trip to the zoo and couldn't get more than 10 mins use out of it since it was so freakn' heavy. IMO I think IS is much too over rated; I'd get a 2.8L over the 2.8L IS any day, but the 2.8L IS is a nice piece to show off though.
st0ney71 said: Lugged this thing on a trip to the zoo and couldn't get more than 10 mins use out of it since it was so freakn' heavy. IMO I think IS is much too over rated; I'd get a 2.8L over the 2.8L IS any day, but the 2.8L IS is a nice piece to show off though.
You are right, this lens is pure garbage and you should sell it before the bottom falls off in terms of it's price. To help you out, I generously offer half of the going market price for a new one.
thinnestwallet said: st0ney71 said: Lugged this thing on a trip to the zoo and couldn't get more than 10 mins use out of it since it was so freakn' heavy. IMO I think IS is much too over rated; I'd get a 2.8L over the 2.8L IS any day, but the 2.8L IS is a nice piece to show off though.
You are right, this lens is pure garbage and you should sell it before the bottom falls off in terms of it's price. To help you out, I generously offer half of the going market price for a new one.
I'll make the offer even better, I'll give quarter of the market price
king0fSpades said: Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
I don't understand how you're complaining about a shallow DOF. Isn't that the whole point with a f/2.8 lens? As for the person complaining about the 100mm macro, it definitely is a slow focusing lens and hunts quite a bit. I used to own one and sold it for that very reason.
for all the shooters who are wondering why there aren't great lens deals out there, or why many good lenses are OOS, here's an interesting article i found at fredmiranda.com: state of the slr market
Dilligas said: king0fSpades said: Yes you can do better from eBay, but that is eBay right?
Ah, eBay is the great dumping grounds for lenses that have all sorts of issues. Don't be fooled into thinking that white lenses are all perfect off the line (lemons are rare, but do happen). On the flip side though, the percentage of bad lenses on eBay is still pretty low (IMHO) until you start getting into the Sigma, Tokina, etc. brands that have worse quality control.
There are a couple of authorized dealers selling brand new camera and lens on eBay. When there was 25% Live CashBack, the price was unbeatable.
This is off topic. IMO, this is a great deal for someone looking into getting this lens. Just don't jump on it because others say 'its the best'. This is from my personal experience. I did previously own the 70-200mm F4 IS last year. It was exactly what I needed and the quality of the pics were incredible (with a 40D). I then went to a concert at night and then it dawned on me that @ F4, it was limited - which started my craving for the 70-200 F2.8 IS version. Everyone seem to 'rave' about it - I jumped in with the Cash Back deal (J&R 15%).
Its been 8 months after buying the 70-200mm F2.8 IS and I've done the following: 1) Had my first two copies returned because they were 'soft' 2) Had the latest(my 3rd) sent back to Canon to deal with the 'softness' - TWICE (they accidentally left some paper IN THE LENS after sending back the first one) 3) @ 2.8 on a Cropped 40D, the images are still 'soft'.
I still love the lens because of the range - One thing to note though is that with the 70-200 F4, I noticed that I'd bring it with me wherever I went - it is about HALF the weight of the 2.8 version. I actually think twice about carrying this lens when I travel. Down the road, I'll probably buy the F4 IS version - It was sharp out of the box
kimdani1 said: king0fSpades said: Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
I don't understand how you're complaining about a shallow DOF. Isn't that the whole point with a f/2.8 lens? As for the person complaining about the 100mm macro, it definitely is a slow focusing lens and hunts quite a bit. I used to own one and sold it for that very reason.
Not complaining about DOF. However I was surprised. At 200mm, F/2.8 and min focusing (< 2m) distance it was less than 2 inches.
When I bought this lens, I thought I will sell 70-200mm F/4L. Now I have to keep both as F/4L has the same quality, may be a bit sharper. Plus it is very light compared to this.
cyberock
Member
posted: May. 14, 2009 @ 9:58a
kimdani1 said: king0fSpades said: Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
I don't understand how you're complaining about a shallow DOF. Isn't that the whole point with a f/2.8 lens? As for the person complaining about the 100mm macro, it definitely is a slow focusing lens and hunts quite a bit. I used to own one and sold it for that very reason.
cyberock said: kimdani1 said: king0fSpades said: Got mine delivered 2 days back. Results are just like my 70-200 F/4L non IS. I was expecting something out of this world. Lens was much sharper at f/8. DOF was very thin at f/2.8 and I got undesired results.
I don't understand how you're complaining about a shallow DOF. Isn't that the whole point with a f/2.8 lens? As for the person complaining about the 100mm macro, it definitely is a slow focusing lens and hunts quite a bit. I used to own one and sold it for that very reason.
I so agree with you! I have 100mm macro and I usually use manual focus. Actually most of the time I just use the lens back and forth to get the precise focus.
Skipping 21 Messages...
CoCoKola
Broke Member
posted: Sep. 16, 2009 @ 10:26p
Aw heck.. I setup an alert for this lens, and I just happen to hit this thread through a search? crap.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
