How to buy a good lense

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sbosic@hotmail.com, Feb 3, 2007.

  1. Sbosic Guest

    On Feb 4, 10:39 am, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    > "King Sardon" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:12:06 +0000, (Keith) wrote:

    >
    > >><> wrote:

    >
    > >>> Is this lense good and worthed to buy??

    >
    > >>> GENUINE CANON EOS 75 - 300 mm F4 - 5.6 Mk III ZOOM LENS
    > >>> onwww.ebay.co.uk
    > >>> GBP 75.00
    > >>> Item number: 130073064653

    >
    > >>It's Lens not Lense

    >
    > > It's worth, not worthed.

    >
    > > Anyway, the 75-300mm is considered to be a decent lens but possibly
    > > not that great at the 300mm end. And you would probably want to use
    > > the 300 mm end a lot.

    >
    > > Check out Google and make sure you are looking at the correct flavor
    > > of the 75-300mm varieties.

    >
    > >http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EF-lenses...
    > >http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008kQE

    >
    > > KS

    >
    > Mind you i would never buy one, cos it will not fit my cameras.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    AT last ...after lots of messages on stupidity, there is one one
    cameras.
    I think, everybody when out of subject...so...on stupidity!!
    I just asked if it is worthed to buy a GENUINE CANON EOS 75 - 300 mm
    F4 - 5.6 Mk III ZOOM LENS from www.ebay.co.uk item number 130073064653
    for GBP75 for my New Canon EOS 400D.
    Is it a bargain, or better go for a Sigma or Tamron?
    Or stick with my 15-55mm?

    Help needed. (Kindly if there are spelling mistakes, ignore them)
    Thanks guys
     
    Sbosic, Feb 4, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill Funk Guest

    On 4 Feb 2007 02:05:16 -0800, "Sbosic" <> wrote:

    >On Feb 4, 10:39 am, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    >> "King Sardon" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:12:06 +0000, (Keith) wrote:

    >>
    >> >><> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>> Is this lense good and worthed to buy??

    >>
    >> >>> GENUINE CANON EOS 75 - 300 mm F4 - 5.6 Mk III ZOOM LENS
    >> >>> onwww.ebay.co.uk
    >> >>> GBP 75.00
    >> >>> Item number: 130073064653

    >>
    >> >>It's Lens not Lense

    >>
    >> > It's worth, not worthed.

    >>
    >> > Anyway, the 75-300mm is considered to be a decent lens but possibly
    >> > not that great at the 300mm end. And you would probably want to use
    >> > the 300 mm end a lot.

    >>
    >> > Check out Google and make sure you are looking at the correct flavor
    >> > of the 75-300mm varieties.

    >>
    >> >http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EF-lenses...
    >> >http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008kQE

    >>
    >> > KS

    >>
    >> Mind you i would never buy one, cos it will not fit my cameras.- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    >AT last ...after lots of messages on stupidity, there is one one
    >cameras.
    >I think, everybody when out of subject...so...on stupidity!!
    >I just asked if it is worthed to buy a GENUINE CANON EOS 75 - 300 mm
    >F4 - 5.6 Mk III ZOOM LENS from www.ebay.co.uk item number 130073064653
    >for GBP75 for my New Canon EOS 400D.
    >Is it a bargain, or better go for a Sigma or Tamron?
    >Or stick with my 15-55mm?
    >
    >Help needed. (Kindly if there are spelling mistakes, ignore them)
    >Thanks guys


    I had that lens, for my Digital Rebel/300D.
    There's nothing wrong with that lens; there are much better lenses out
    there.
    It's soft at the long end, and I found it to be a little slow on
    focusing, but in good light, it's not bad.
    I replaced it with the newer EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, and have
    been very happy I did so.
    As for whether or not this is a good bargain for you, I can't say;
    only you can make that decision.
    Should you stick with the 15-55mm lens? I don't understand that
    question. There is no way to compare a 70-300mm lens with a 15-55mm
    lens. They cover entirely different ranges.

    --
    The New York Yankees signed a
    deal with China Monday to expand
    baseball into the world's largest
    nation. The people of China meet
    the first test of what it takes
    to be great baseball fans. They
    are not fussy at all about what
    goes into a hot dog.
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 4, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:41:06 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

    >> Help needed. (Kindly if there are spelling mistakes, ignore them)
    >> Thanks guys

    >
    > I had that lens, for my Digital Rebel/300D.
    > There's nothing wrong with that lens; there are much better lenses out
    > there.
    > It's soft at the long end, and I found it to be a little slow on
    > focusing, but in good light, it's not bad.
    > I replaced it with the newer EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, and have
    > been very happy I did so.
    > As for whether or not this is a good bargain for you, I can't say;
    > only you can make that decision.
    > Should you stick with the 15-55mm lens? I don't understand that
    > question. There is no way to compare a 70-300mm lens with a 15-55mm
    > lens. They cover entirely different ranges.


    As Sbosic is aware of his spelling difficulties, he may be more
    fluent in languages other than English, and so didn't phrase his
    question in a manner that avoids any possibility of ambiguity. He
    probably meant "Is the 70-300mm lens good enough to consider adding
    to my lens collection, or should I stick with just the 15-55mm
    lens." If he indicated that he would make do with either the
    15-15mm or the 70-300mm lens, but not both, I must have missed it.
    Your description of the lens should be good enough for him to decide
    whether to keep bidding or not, assuming that someone tops his
    initial bid, giving him the opportunity to drop out. :)
     
    ASAAR, Feb 4, 2007
    #23
  4. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:41:06 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
    >
    >>> Help needed. (Kindly if there are spelling mistakes, ignore them)
    >>> Thanks guys

    >> I had that lens, for my Digital Rebel/300D.
    >> There's nothing wrong with that lens; there are much better lenses out
    >> there.
    >> It's soft at the long end, and I found it to be a little slow on
    >> focusing, but in good light, it's not bad.
    >> I replaced it with the newer EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, and have
    >> been very happy I did so.
    >> As for whether or not this is a good bargain for you, I can't say;
    >> only you can make that decision.
    >> Should you stick with the 15-55mm lens? I don't understand that
    >> question. There is no way to compare a 70-300mm lens with a 15-55mm
    >> lens. They cover entirely different ranges.

    >
    > As Sbosic is aware of his spelling difficulties, he may be more
    > fluent in languages other than English, and so didn't phrase his
    > question in a manner that avoids any possibility of ambiguity. He
    > probably meant "Is the 70-300mm lens good enough to consider adding
    > to my lens collection, or should I stick with just the 15-55mm
    > lens." If he indicated that he would make do with either the
    > 15-15mm or the 70-300mm lens, but not both, I must have missed it.
    > Your description of the lens should be good enough for him to decide
    > whether to keep bidding or not, assuming that someone tops his
    > initial bid, giving him the opportunity to drop out. :)



    Then again, it might have been his item and he was shilling it. Owwww, I
    have become too skeptical.

    Anyway, I really was under the impression that this was a poor lens.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 4, 2007
    #24
  5. ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:37:45 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:

    > Then again, it might have been his item and he was shilling it. Owwww,
    > I have become too skeptical.


    You too? I offerred that as one possibility in my initial reply
    in this thread. Probably not, though.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 4, 2007
    #25
  6. Bruce Patis Guest

    On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:52:19 -0500, "Hoover" <> wrote:

    >WTF is a "lense"?
    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Is this lense good and worthed to buy??
    >>
    >> GENUINE CANON EOS 75 - 300 mm F4 - 5.6 Mk III ZOOM LENS
    >> on www.ebay.co.uk
    >> GBP 75.00
    >> Item number: 130073064653
    >>

    >


    I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
    Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
    depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
    spelling of the English word, lense.

    BTW, in contrast to statements from our present administration, we
    Americans do not speak English. We speak (and spell) American. The
    languages are similar, but have many different words for the same
    thing. In addition, as with lens, there are also other words which
    are pronounced the same, but are spelled differently in the two
    languages. Color/colour is a well known example.

    In any case, I do agree that some Americans think that the English
    spelling denotes a higher class product. In fact, some advertisements
    intentionally take advantage of that misconception.

    For those who do not want to use the terms American and English as the
    names for two different languages, I like the terms used by many
    software publishers in their multi-national products. They offer a
    choice of USenglish or UKenglish. Why not?


    Bruce
     
    Bruce Patis, Feb 5, 2007
    #26
  7. Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:19:47 +0000, Bruce Patis wrote:

    >
    > I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
    > Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
    > depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
    > spelling of the English word, lense.

    This is nonsense- the spelling is lens.
    >
    > BTW, in contrast to statements from our present administration, we
    > Americans do not speak English. We speak (and spell) American. The
    > languages are similar, but have many different words for the same
    > thing. In addition, as with lens, there are also other words which
    > are pronounced the same, but are spelled differently in the two
    > languages. Color/colour is a well known example.

    It is the same language, just a different dialect.




    --
    Neil
    Reverse 'r' and 'a', delete 'l' for email.
     
    Neil Ellwood, Feb 5, 2007
    #27
  8. Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:19:47 +0000, Bruce Patis wrote:
    >
    >> I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
    >> Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
    >> depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
    >> spelling of the English word, lense.

    > This is nonsense- the spelling is lens.


    Perhaps a few centuries ago it was somewhat common on either side of the
    Atlantic, but it's sure grown tiresome in this one.

    >> BTW, in contrast to statements from our present administration, we
    >> Americans do not speak English. We speak (and spell) American. The
    >> languages are similar, but have many different words for the same
    >> thing. In addition, as with lens, there are also other words which
    >> are pronounced the same, but are spelled differently in the two
    >> languages. Color/colour is a well known example.


    > It is the same language, just a different dialect.


    I'd wager there are more anomalies in each dialect than there are
    differences between the two.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 5, 2007
    #28
  9. Neil Ellwood <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:19:47 +0000, Bruce Patis wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
    >> Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
    >> depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
    >> spelling of the English word, lense.

    >This is nonsense- the spelling is lens.


    Unless you spell it lense.

    From WordNet (r) 2.0[wn]:
    lense
    n : a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge
    transmitted light and to form images [syn: lens, lens
    system]

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 5, 2007
    #29
  10. Sbosic Guest

    On Feb 5, 8:02 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    > Neil Ellwood <> wrote:
    > >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:19:47 +0000, Bruce Patis wrote:

    >
    > >> I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
    > >> Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
    > >> depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
    > >> spelling of the English word, lense.

    > >This is nonsense- the spelling is lens.

    >
    > Unless you spell it lense.
    >
    > From WordNet (r) 2.0[wn]:
    > lense
    > n : a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge
    > transmitted light and to form images [syn: lens, lens
    > system]
    >
    > --
    > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)


    thanks everybody!!!
    it means that i am not so stupid...
    by the way...i am neither english nor american...
    but to tell the truth....i wish i was born any of them!!
     
    Sbosic, Feb 5, 2007
    #30
  11. Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Neil Ellwood <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:19:47 +0000, Bruce Patis wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
    >>> Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
    >>> depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
    >>> spelling of the English word, lense.

    >> This is nonsense- the spelling is lens.

    >
    > Unless you spell it lense.
    >
    > From WordNet (r) 2.0[wn]:
    > lense
    > n : a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge
    > transmitted light and to form images [syn: lens, lens
    > system]
    >

    The Oxford English dictionary only lists lens.
    The idea that English and American are separate languages is idiotic.
    Spelling a few words differently isn't enough to make your own language.
     
    , Feb 14, 2007
    #31
  12. J. Clarke Guest

    On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:50:51 GMT, ""
    <> wrote:

    >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> Neil Ellwood <> wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:19:47 +0000, Bruce Patis wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I'm surprised that some of our UK friends did not explain this better.
    >>>> Lense is simply the English spelling for the American word, lens; or,
    >>>> depending on "which side of the pond" you reside, lens is the American
    >>>> spelling of the English word, lense.
    >>> This is nonsense- the spelling is lens.

    >>
    >> Unless you spell it lense.
    >>
    >> From WordNet (r) 2.0[wn]:
    >> lense
    >> n : a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge
    >> transmitted light and to form images [syn: lens, lens
    >> system]
    >>

    >The Oxford English dictionary only lists lens.
    >The idea that English and American are separate languages is idiotic.
    >Spelling a few words differently isn't enough to make your own language.


    It seems to be people who are not native speakers of English and who
    learned their English in school who are most prone to using that
    spelling and most adamant about its acceptability. I suspect that
    this is the result either of a flawed textbook or of the school
    teaching some sort of "simplified English", probably including the
    silent "e" so that they don't have to explain the rule about adding a
    silent "e" when creating the plural of words that end with "s". I'm
    surprised they don't refer to the material from which lenses are made
    as "glasse". Or maybe they do.

    While there are many words that are spelled differently in the UK and
    the US, "lens" is not one of them.

    In any case, the producers of Wordnet make no assertion that they are
    attempting to create an authoritative dictionary of the English
    language and relying on that source over Merriam-Webster and the
    Oxford is unwise. But Oxford and Merriam-Webster are both commercial
    products and people who refuse to back down on their use of "lense"
    are probably too cheap or poor to buy one of them and too lazy to get
    themselves to a library.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 14, 2007
    #32
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tim

    Kenko 3x lense for DSC-717 - they any good?

    Tim, Sep 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    481
  2. Povl H. Pedersen

    Off eBay - lense offers too good to be true ?

    Povl H. Pedersen, Dec 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    664
    dperez@juno_nospam.com
    Jan 3, 2004
  3. ed

    canon d10 Good macro lense?

    ed, Jul 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    993
    Georgette Preddy
    Jul 24, 2004
  4. eh
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    744
  5. RnR

    Good all around zoom lense for Canon EOS 20d

    RnR, Jan 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    613
    Bill Funk
    Jan 3, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page