If i buy this.. then..

[Inst!nct]

My telephoto lens is crap. I take pictures, look ok on the screen, look ****ty on the computer, and to be honest, its really driving me crazy. Even when i use a tripod i might add.

So, if I buy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM, first of all, good lens? Ive seen many good reviews, second, i dont have THAT much money, so after spending 600 on a lens, i will definetly not have money left over, is it necessary that i have to have a nice 300 dollar tripod with this?

So, is it necessary to have expensive tripod for this lens?

Tyvm, i appreciate it

 

[usayit]

Good lens... balanced and easy to hold/pack. Good even when shot wide open. No.. you don't need to spend that much on a tripod but a good stable one will always be useful no matter what lens you are using. Many will shoot with that lens handheld as well....

There are many options of less expensive tripods that are sufficient for the 70-200mm f/4L + camera. My preference is Bogen/manfrotto. You should also look into used tripods of the same manufacturer. I have a heavy duty 3001 bogen with 3 way head purchased at a camera swap for $35... Now that's a bit of a extreme example but there are defintely deals to be found if you search with patience.

 

[Big Mike]

That is a fantastic lens, no doubt about that.

Do you need an expensive tripod for it...that's harder to say. As it is a telephoto lens, you will certainly want a stable tripod, but this lens isn't huge or all that heavy, so an average tripod should work fairly well.

I don't think this lens comes with a tripod collar, like the 70-200mm F2.8 version does. So if you have to mount the camera to the tripod, that will leave the end of the lens less stable that if the lens was mounted directly the the tripod. I don't remember exactly, but I think you can buy a tripod collar for that lens, but the Canon collar isn't cheap.

Getting sharp shots with a telephoto lens, is a skill that often has to be learned. So don't assume that you will instantly fix all your problems just by getting a better lens.

 

[Inst!nct]

How about the 100-300mm IS canon lens? Would i still need this? idk, tripod or lens really..

after this

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...non-70-300-usm-vs-canon-70-200-f-4-l-not.html

maybe just 70-200 non IS?

 

[Pugs]

Do you currently have a tripod? If not, before you spend money on an expensive lens, try a cheap tripod... but not TOO cheap. I cannot hand-hold my 70-300 worth a damn past 200mm. A tripod is essential for me!

 

[Inst!nct]

Do you currently have a tripod? If not, before you spend money on an expensive lens, try a cheap tripod... but not TOO cheap. I cannot hand-hold my 70-300 worth a damn past 200mm. A tripod is essential for me!

I have a 80 dollar sunpak tripod..

 

[Wolverinepwnes]

No need to an expensive tripod, as long as its stable you should be fine

 

[Shockey]

You should be able to great looking pictures without a tripod. Post a couple in the beginners forum and get critique, maybe it won't cost you any money.

 

[Inst!nct]

You should be able to great looking pictures without a tripod. Post a couple in the beginners forum and get critique, maybe it won't cost you any money.

the pictures themselves are commented in the beginners section as good, that being said, they are hosted on a site that only allows a much smaller version to be hosted, when looked at closely the quality is terrible and it takes me a lot of work to try to make it look a little like a normal lens.

And about the tripod, it is stable, my only gripe about it is that its not set up for a heavier lens and tends to have the head fall down when the lens is too heavy and set at a 180 or more degree, considering the top of the head was the plane, if that makes sense

 

[kundalini]

A lot of the salvation for getting sharp images is in......

Da Grip




​

BTW, I'm a left eye shooter......​

 

[Inst!nct]

O wow, thank you for that video, its interesting, dont have too much time atm considering im leaving home in like 10minutes, but am watching it writing this.

Ok, another subject on this.

70-200mm NON IS for 500 VS 75-300mm canon IS for 350

btw video is great!!! thank you

 

[Pugs]

A lot of the salvation for getting sharp images is in......

Da Grip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDsx3-FWfwk​

BTW, I'm a left eye shooter......​

Very interesting video. I'm a left-eye shooter out of necessity. I'm blind in my right eye. My D300 is not gripped so I don't know that I'll be able to bet it tucked into the shoulder like that, but I'm definitely going to play with that technique!

As a martial artist and a shooter (firearms), I'm a little surprised that I've never really paid much attention to stance. I'm going to have to start working on that.

 

[jensgt]

I am surprised you dislike the Sigma that much. You should post some of these terrible pictures..

I have liked mine so far...but then don't really have anything to compare it to. Am dissapointed though that I can't use a teleconverter with it.

 

[iflynething]

What about a monopod? Just about the same support, yet not as bulky.

I'm not sure what you're shooting, but monopods are great and some SunPak and other manufacturers actually already come with a monopod as the center column.

Look for something like that if you don't want to spend that much on one and you'll have two in one. While these monopods already with the tripod aren't that great, they should get you by until a better on is affordable.

~Michael~

 

[Inst!nct]

Right, right now i made a deal for 350 for a canon 70-300mm IS on craigslist. I realized that 70-200 wasn't what i was looking for, the IS is more appealing to me, ill upgrade to the IS 70-200 when i get a job

and tripod is a good idea, im guessing there isn't too much price range for a monopod? off to google.

btw, monopods are B.A.