Ripley Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) Does anyone here own the Canon L 70-200 f/4 WITH IS in it and have they fitted a telecoverter to it at all? Even if they just own that lens, is it very heavy? I have received a cheque from the US (in USD ) for the full amount of what I paid for my Canon L 70-200 (the one without IS) from B&H New York, as I mentioned previously, I dropped that lens in May, it broke, but when I got someone to buy that lens for me from the US last year, a warranty was also bought with it which covered accidental impacts and damage. So now I have the refund cheque and I'm wondering should I buy the 70-200 L WITH IS this time, as I also have a Canon L 1.4 teleconverter and I couldn't use that on the non IS version without wobblying about the place , which meant I couldn't hand hold that non IS version with the teleconverter attached at all. As I don't like carting around a monopod when out, that meant I got no use out of the teleconverter. I also have another dilema. I have a broken Canon L 70-200 lens sitting at home. I don't need to send it back. I was initially quoted over $700 to repair it but Ted's have said they will charge much less to repair it. I haven't received a quote from them yet to do so. My OH thinks I should get it repaired at Ted's and sell it. Edited July 11, 2009 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I'd go with the IS.......apparently it makes a huge difference on that lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirislin Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I cant really advise on the lens but I am curious about the cheque in US $. Wont you have to pay a fee to get it converted to Aussie $$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 Thanks, tess, I'm thinking that. I can hand hold the non IS version pretty steady but not with the teleconverter attached. With the teleconverter, that would give me a 280mm lens, even though reducing aperture to 5.6 I think. I'll see what it's going for here as the IS version is about USD1,100 at B&H, which means you pay import duty on items over AUD1,000 I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 I cant really advise on the lens but I am curious about the cheque in US $. Wont you have to pay a fee to get it converted to Aussie $$ I paid $15 bank fees on it. Cheque worked out to be close to AUD$800. Not enough to buy the non IS version of course, but I'm getting a tax cheque from Mr Rudd shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirislin Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Re buying from the US, does import duty apply to 2nd hand items? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 You could get the 70-200 fixed and keep it, its a versatile focal range. You won't need the TC with it if you decide later to get a longer lens for birding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) I was considering the 300m L fixed focal length but it's a bit expensive. The 70-200 is also great for scenics too and for taking pics of dogs and um, cows as I have done so before. Damn it, when you buy just one L lens, it's hard to consider anything else for telephoto stuff! I don't know anyone well enough who is going to the US again soon so I'll have to buy the lens in Australia. I have held the Sigma 150-400 and it's heavy but not overly so. I just want another L lens that works. So I have the broken lens at home, can't afford to get that repaired plus buy another new lens atm. Second hand, those non IS lenses are going from anywhere from $600 to $850 I've noticed. Edited July 11, 2009 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Ripley, I would suggest TRY any IS lens before you buy. There was one Canon I tried and the IS induced motion sickness I think with importing you are ok up to $1000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) I held the 300mm L fixed one, chezzyr. It was heavy. I'll try f/4 IS version but I've read it isn't heavy (reviews were from blokes so it could be heavy for me. I have small hands but long fingers). Monelite was kind enough to loan me her Canon f/4 non IS the other week so I didn't miss my lovely lens too much. But the poor thing is sitting there in the cupboard, looks fine on the outside but internally it's not, in its box and all because it didn't withstand a roll off the bed onto the floor (note to self: do not clean camera gear on the bed again!) I paid about USD$250 for the L 1.4 teleconverter too. That has received no use so what a waste of money atm. I think with importing you are ok up to $1000. Yes, that is correct. The non IS version in the States is USD $1,100 so I'd have to pay duty and that duty is a few hundred Aussie dollars. I've bought 2 lenses downstairs from my work at a smaller camera shop as they have matched the best price I've found on the net and then given me a small discount on that price if I paid them cash. I might see what they can do for me in matching prices on a few lenses. Edited July 11, 2009 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) You mean the IS don't you. The non IS ones are pretty cheap in the scheme of things. IS adds to price and weight. Edited July 11, 2009 by chezzyr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 Yeah, sorry, I re-edited when I realised my mistake. I can hand hold the non IS in good light but I noticed in lower light, not so good when I can't get a faster shutter speed. I have hand held it at 1/140 before and got a good shot, but I braced against a tree. Sometimes there are no trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 FWIW I'm off to the US in November And I adore my IS. I can handhold my 70-200 down to like 1/30 @ 200 and I suck at hand holding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Why not just get the broken one fixed and buy yourself some more thinking time. Its Winter. If you are thinking birds, Spring and Summer is the best time Beautiful light, longer days to play with etc. Maybe keep your eyes open for a nice second hand lens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) I am now kicking myself I didn't buy a newish but second hand 300mm L fixed focal on ebay last month that ended up going for $1,100 and the guy only lived 2 suburbs from me too! OH said get the broken one fixed if Ted's can do it for a fair price (they will charge me $40 for a quote) and sell it. Guy at Ted's said Canon overquote and overcharge all their repairs. FWIW I'm off to the US in November For a hol or work? I have a friend going to New York for NYE but I can't entrust him to bring me home a lens, he's too much of a party animal and would probably lose it/it might get stolen on his travels. The guy who bought the original lens for me was my boss and he didn't leave NY in 10 days. Edited July 11, 2009 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I'd be getting a couple of quotes, get it fixed, keep it on hand to use and then sell when you buy another lens (which probably should have been that 300mm you duffer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? Ah well, I AM a blonde. I'm not taking pics atm anyway, but want to go on that boat to see the albatross/whales/other seabirds in August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Well the 70-200 might be ok for the pelagic if they chuck burley And a cheaper lens to replace if you drop it overboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) Well the 70-200 might be ok for the pelagic if they chuck burley And a cheaper lens to replace if you drop it overboard They do burley. Not sure how I feel about that from an environmental perspective but haven't researched it enough/seen it to form an opinion either way. Maybe JAWS himself might show up and we'll be saying, "Better get a bigger boat!" I was told to take a standard zoom too, those seabirds can get quite close. Edited July 11, 2009 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Sorry not sure how burley is made these days but when my grandparents talked about it I am sure they just used bits of fish, squid and fish guts etc all pretty natural. I have been out on boats and gotten quite close to seals and cormorants etc. Anything over 200mm was overkill then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now