Posts: 2,483
Threads: 139
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
At first, I was deciding between the 70-200 f/4L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS
"finally" decided to get the f/4L
then "finally" decided to get the f/2.8L IS
then loop the two above
now deciding whether to get the f/2.8L IS or a set of primes which are in the same range.
Posts: 2,483
Threads: 139
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
Your opinions please?
Which choice would you make, and why?
Posts: 9,731
Threads: 1,965
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
6
I assume you've already got a primary lens that you're happy with and this would be a secondary lens.
Personally I would get the f/4 as it's almost half the weight and size. If it's going to be a hassle to carry it around and change lenses, I'll probably end up leaving it at home. The exception would be when I knew I would be going to a specific event (e.g. tennis match, concert etc).
Price is also a factor for me... I usually don't get the best money can buy, but rather get something that has the most bang for the buck I'm willing to shell out for...
\But that's just me. 
Posts: 3,620
Threads: 235
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
I've been looking at the 70-200L ,f-2.8 myself. 
Sit, stay, ok, hold it! Awww, no drooling! :O
My flickr images
(This post was last modified: Jan 21, 2005, 07:02 by joshuashen.)
Posts: 1,716
Threads: 125
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
adam Wrote:Your opinions please?
Which choice would you make, and why?
I bought the f/4L mainly for the price savings. It is, hands down, the best value among Canon's L glass. But you should consider the "cost" of having to use ISO400 to get hand-holdable shutter speeds in less-than-bright light. For some that's negligible, for others problematic.
The weight of the f/2.8 IS lens would be an issue on long hikes.
The f/4, with hood, is plenty intrusive as it is, and adding an inch or so with the f/2.8 wouldn't offend many more people. So I don't think size is much of an issue.
But IS is a wonderful thing! I would NOT get the f/2.8 non-IS; in my opinion it's worth paying up for, if you're comparing the two f/2.8 models.
That said, if you are considering the non-IS f/2.8, you could also look at the Enigma 70-200 f/2.8, or a used copy of the Canon 80-200 f/2.8L, which is considered by some to be one of the best zooms they've made (though it won't work with the Canon teleconverters, but I'm told it will work fine with the Tamron 1.4x TC.)
_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Posts: 1,716
Threads: 125
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
Petographer Wrote:I've been looking at the 70-200L ,f-2.8 myself.
Rockin'!
_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Posts: 1,716
Threads: 125
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
shuttertalk Wrote:Price is also a factor for me... I usually don't get the best money can buy, but rather get something that has the most bang for the buck I'm willing to shell out for...
The f/4 is definitely the most bang for the buck, IMHO.
I think you'd be surprised at how much you leave it on the camera. I sold my "street" zoom, the Tamron 28-75, because I found I wasn't using the range much anymore. The 70-200 f/4 is my favorite, but I get good use out of the 50mm f/1.4 for indoor shots.
And now I'm adding to my collection ...
going W I D E ...
_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Posts: 2,483
Threads: 139
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
Ooooo! Thanks thanks thanks! More things to think about
Maybe I'll try it out in the shop today!
Posts: 9,731
Threads: 1,965
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
6
slejhamer Wrote:That said, if you are considering the non-IS f/2.8, you could also look at the Enigma 70-200 f/2.8, or a used copy of the Canon 80-200 f/2.8L, which is considered by some to be one of the best zooms they've made (though it won't work with the Canon teleconverters, but I'm told it will work fine with the Tamron 1.4x TC.)
What's Enigma? Never heard of them before....
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
|
