12-22-2011, 12:33 PM
Personally if wildlife is on the list, I'd prefer a 300mm lens without stabilisation over a 200mm lens with. Often you just can't get enough reach, but this does assume the lens is "good enough" at 300mm in the first place. I do know people who have used the really cheap Tamron 70-300 with good effect.
But it does depend on what you will be using it for. For wildlife stabilisation is not so much an essential requirement anyway. Often you will be aiming for faster shutter speeds to prevent subject motion blur, but again it depends on the type of subject.
But it does depend on what you will be using it for. For wildlife stabilisation is not so much an essential requirement anyway. Often you will be aiming for faster shutter speeds to prevent subject motion blur, but again it depends on the type of subject.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.