FS: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM

**Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer** · 07-25-2016, 09:43 PM

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM plus Pearstone Onyx Case, Hoya HMC Super 67mm UV(o) Multi-Coated Filter and Hoya Pro L Circular PL 67mm Filter- $800 Shipped to CONTUS plus PayPal fee unless gift - SOLD

**Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer** · 07-29-2016, 04:55 PM

Updated prices thanks to some input/guidance. I revised the original post to avoid confusion, but here are the revised prices:

$275 shipped for the Nifty Fifty Package

$900 shipped for the 70-300 L Package.

I think these are likely more realistic. These lenses are mint/like new, so someone has to put them to work!

**Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer** · 08-06-2016, 05:13 PM

Edit: Lowered prices:

$250 shipped for the Nifty Fifty Package

$850 shipped for the 70-300 L Package.

**LightRanger** · 08-08-2016, 11:02 AM

Bump.

I dunno dude. I've used the 50 1.8 a lot with my guys for portraits. What would you use instead?

**Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer** · 08-08-2016, 09:41 PM

My EFS 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM zoom lens that is always on my camera or my iPhone. Both serve my purposes well at this point and I have found them fast enough for what I am looking for.

**LightRanger** · 08-09-2016, 11:11 AM

Gotcha.

Heh. I'm going to buy that same lens at some point in the next year or so, so maybe my opinion will change too. I'm still kinda doubtful though... the indoor candid shots of them playing with blocks and whatnot are just *so* sharp at like F2-2.8. We'll see.

**Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer** · 08-09-2016, 01:00 PM

To be clear, the 15-85 is no where as fast or sharp as the Nifty Fifty for indoor candid shots of kids. Not even in the same league. The 15-85 is a great, sharp walking around lens.

I'm glad you posted about this as I have reverse my mind and am going to hang on to the Nifty Fifty. Once my boys become more mobile, I suspect I will then want the quickness indoors! Talk about a flip flop. Glad no one wanted this!

Definitely don't need the huge telephone lens so that is still available.

**LightRanger** · 08-09-2016, 01:24 PM

^^^ Hahah! (I hear you on the tele lens. I'd love to have one, but it's very low on the list because I feel like the only time I would use it would be like on a Yellowstone trip. Move it back on the list in 15 years when the kids are getting fast/good at soccer or hockey or whatever.)

**smmokan** · 08-10-2016, 03:55 PM

That 70-300mm L lens is a killer.... so fast and sharp. I took some awesome shots with it last summer.

**Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer** · 08-17-2016, 07:44 AM

Edit: $800 shipped for 70-300 (plus PayPal fee unless gift). This lens is mint.

**uglymoney** · 08-17-2016, 01:15 PM

I have the 50 1.4 and it is awesome. I had a 50 1.8 and no comparison can be made imo.

I wish I had an extra $800 laying around for the 70-300.

**DJSapp** · 08-17-2016, 01:43 PM

I keep reopening this thread. I need a telephoto and almost had a drainpipe for cheap but it didn't survive shipping and nobody can fix it. I keep looking at 70-200 2.8's and keep asking if I really need that much aperture. Mostly looking to get a big zoom for the start of my kid's soccer season.

Caveman, you pass through SF during the week? I'm in Davis, work in the city.

**From_the_NEK** · 08-17-2016, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by DJSapp

I keep reopening this thread. I need a telephoto and almost had a drainpipe for cheap but it didn't survive shipping and nobody can fix it. I keep looking at 70-200 2.8's and keep asking if I really need that much aperture. Mostly looking to get a big zoom for the start of my kid's soccer season.

For likely well lit outdoor soccer games that 70-300 should work great. I went with the 70-200 2.8 so that I could photograph poorly lit activities like school concerts and ballet recitals.
The one thing the 2.8 aperture will get you for photographing soccer is you can run a faster shutter speed on lower light cloudy days to capture fast action. But since you are in N Cal, I would think that you would have plenty of light most of the time.

**uglymoney** · 08-17-2016, 01:55 PM

I take soccer pics with F4 70-200 and even in low light outdoors it is plenty fast. The 200 is as much as I feel I ever need for soccer even on a full frame. The 70-300 would be much better for taking wildlife shots that I can't get close enough to @ 200 with a full frame.

**DJSapp** · 08-17-2016, 02:03 PM

Great, now buy my 12-24 so I can get some funds for this!

**From_the_NEK** · 08-17-2016, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by DJSapp

Great, now buy my 12-24 so I can get some funds for this!

I already have a Tokina 11-20 2.8

**Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer** · 08-17-2016, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by uglymoney

I have the 50 1.4 and it is awesome. I had a 50 1.8 and no comparison can be made imo.

I wish I had an extra $800 laying around for the 70-300.

Yeah, I'm really glad I ended up keeping the 50 1.4. It is growing on me and I am using it more around the house with my boys. So fast.

**Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer** · 08-17-2016, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by DJSapp

I keep reopening this thread. I need a telephoto and almost had a drainpipe for cheap but it didn't survive shipping and nobody can fix it. I keep looking at 70-200 2.8's and keep asking if I really need that much aperture. Mostly looking to get a big zoom for the start of my kid's soccer season.

Caveman, you pass through SF during the week? I'm in Davis, work in the city.

Not regularly but I can easily get up there to hand off the lens if you want it. I'm down in MV so can get up there easily.