Jump to content


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, StuartJPP said:

The non-IS is supposed to be slightly sharper than the IS version. Either way I agree that it is a decent lens and the tripod foot comes in handy.

I got the lens for less than £350 with the foot, looked at the price of a genuine Canon foot on its own and nearly fainted..


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I personally think the Canon 70-200 /f2.8 and /f4 are superb lenses for astro. Nice wide apertures on both, especially the 2.8 and decent focal length with crop for widefield shots. The sweet spot for

The Canon 200mm f2.8 is reasonable, nice field of view for larger objects like M31, M44 & M45. There is some distortion of bright stars towards the edge of the frame, but nothing that can't be fix

Thanks everyone for the comments and suggestions. I have pulled trigger on a number of lenses that should be here over the next week. Amongst them are the following that I feel will get a fair am

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.