Why is the 70-200L so big ?

cwphotos

Im going to be getting this lens for the 2006 shootout. I was just wondering why the freakin thing is so big. I mean it's only 70-200mm......thats not huge.

DoctorIt

cwphotos wrote:

Im going to be getting this lens for the 2006 shootout. I was just wondering why the freakin thing is so big. I mean it's only 70-200mm......thats not huge.

fixed aperture, internal focus. nuff said. IS adds a bit too, but its actually not a huge size jump from the 2.8L to the 2.8L IS.

cwphotos

can you explain fixed apeture to me...Its not clicking right now....

Red Baron

A fixed aperture of 2.8 means that you can enjoy the benefits of a 2.8 aperture throughout the 70-200 focal range. This doesn't mean the aperture cannot be changed from 2.8 but rather you can shoot at f2.8 at 70mm, 200mm or anywhere in between. In comparison, with a consumer lens like the 28-135 IS the aperture will change from 3.5 to 5.6 as you zoom from 28mm to 135mm. This type of lens will be slower focusing than a fixed aperture lens, tend to hunt in low light and produce bokeh less pleasing to the eye than a lens with a fixed aperture of 2.8.

ginger_55

70-200 big????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, and Andy calls it a lead pipe, hahahahaha.

See, I not only have that "smaller" lens, but w/o the IS and the 2.8, I have the 400L 5.6. Love it to death, but it is BIGGER, and would be called BIG by some.

You know it is all relative, big is!

ginger (I certainly do take the 400, and the 70-200, two ext things, and the wide (17-40) everywhere I go in my backpack, keeping one on the camera. Now heavy is carrying the camera with the 400 on it, the pack on my back with all sorts of stuff. And walking a bit. I am old (66), arthritic and heavier than I was................too heavy!)

The 70-200 is not that big! not in my opinion.

cwphotos

maybe its just the picture that looks big...... dunno

DavidTO

Why not the 70-200 f4L?

You lose a stop, and no IS, but it's smaller and much, much cheaper. Great lens. If you decide later you need to trade up, it holds it's value very well. Plus I can't imagine that you'll need the 2.8 or the IS for landscapes....

cwphotos

Sorry I didnt mention it but yeah I am going with the non IS version.

ginger_55

Hey, I am selling mine! So I can take photos of landscapes in the dark at 2.8.............you can do that, can't you?

I am going to try to work up a photo of that lens and my wide lens in a sec!

Will post them soon.

ginger

Osprey Whisperer

The Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 USM II "L" is nice and light/small. It's also "black" for all the "whitealensophobes". Truly awsome lens for the money. It's also sharpen than those "zooms".

mereimage

cwphotos wrote:

Im going to be getting this lens for the 2006 shootout. I was just wondering why the freakin thing is so big. I mean it's only 70-200mm......thats not huge.

See here http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=26651

Mereimage

Andy

It's big and bad and wonderful because of that f/2.8 goodness

And I'm going back to this glass, soon.

rutt

DoctorIt wrote:

fixed aperture, internal focus. nuff said. IS adds a bit too, but its actually not a huge size jump from the 2.8L to the 2.8L IS.

[IMGL]http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/37417249-M.jpg[/IMGL]
[IMGR]http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/37418520-M.jpg[/IMGR]

That's it.

It's also my favorite lens for lots of things. Great great bokah.

graeme_7799

the 70-200 is neither too big nor too small. it feels hefty, but not too much. it fits comfortably in your hands when shooting and i think its great. on a monopod doing sports, you cannot beat it.