New 70/200 lens question.

Sam

Ok, after reading about Lynn's slide into debauchery with the 70/200? 2.8 IS, I have a question.

I was going buy a 70/200L 4.0, but I got to thinking. (dangerous thing for me to be doing).

What are the thoughts with regard to streching the budget and getting the 2.8? Would this be a reasonable substitute for a portrait lens?

Would the 2.8 be usefull in primaraly outside photography to say isolate the subject?

I guess I am just asking for the opinions of those with more experiance. Do you believe that it would be worth it in the long haul to get the 2.8 versus the 4.0?

Thanks,

Sam

lynnma

Sam wrote:

Ok, after reading about Lynn's slide into debauchery with the 70/200? 2.8 IS, I have a question.

I was going buy a 70/200L 4.0, but I got to thinking. (dangerous thing for me to be doing).

What are the thoughts with regard to streching the budget and getting the 2.8? Would this be a reasonable substitute for a portrait lens?

Would the 2.8 be usefull in primaraly outside photography to say isolate the subject?

I guess I am just asking for the opinions of those with more experiance. Do you believe that it would be worth it in the long haul to get the 2.8 versus the 4.0?

Thanks,

Sam

Oh God Sam.. what have you done.... what have I done......

luckyrwe

Buy the best and you only cry once. Here is a small version of what the 70-200/2.8 L lens did for me this past weekend. 1/80th sec, f4, iso1600.

jimf

Sam wrote:

What are the thoughts with regard to streching the budget and getting the 2.8? Would this be a reasonable substitute for a portrait lens?

I think it was Kodak that said that the "perfect" portrait lens was 135mm (and then changed their mind and said 105mm, and then changed it back). Maybe that's true from the point of view of creating the most appealing shot, but practically speaking that's a pretty long lens for indoor shooting.

When I was in portraiture class I tried a few different lenses and frankly I found even the short end of my 75-300 lens to be too long for an average size studio. The 28-70 f/2.8 was very good. This on an EOS-300D with a 1.6x cropping factor. Since then I've not even bothered to try anything else.

I guess I am just asking for the opinions of those with more experiance. Do you believe that it would be worth it in the long haul to get the 2.8 versus the 4.0?

What do you intend to do with it? If you're going to do sports, absolutely -- you want the speed. But the lens is big, bulky, and very heavy, kind of a specialty lens. CMR will probably laugh at me for saying so, but I would find it tedious to lug around all the time.

If you're going to blow money on a really good single lens then I would suggest the 24-70 f/2.8 instead. I have the previous generation 28-70, which is the lens I leave on the camera. I swap for wider or longer lenses for particular situations. You can pick up that lens plus the excellent bang-for-the-buck 75-300 f/3.5-5.0 IS lens for about the same money as just the 70-200 and have an excellent portraiture / general purpose lens plus a pretty good outside lens.

Andy

i use the 70-200 f/2.8L i.s., and i'll say.. imo it's one of canon's best. sharpness, color, contrast, it's aces.

portraits? sure, outdoors though.

go to jim fuglestad's site most of his portrait work (outdoor and some indoor) is done with this lens.

cheers

mercphoto

Sam wrote:

I was going buy a 70/200L 4.0, but I got to thinking. (dangerous thing for me to be doing).

What are the thoughts with regard to streching the budget and getting the 2.8? Would this be a reasonable substitute for a portrait lens?

How often do you shoot a portrait at f/2.8? I have the 70-200/2.8/IS and love it. Have even used it for outdoor portraits wide-open. But it has also made me addicted to fast glass. I've considered buying the 17-40/4 but now feel that f/4 is too slow to "waste" money on. I feel silly for thinking that way but I do. Its a disease. I'm not sure how to cure it.

jimf

mercphoto wrote:

How often do you shoot a portrait at f/2.8?

Indoors, I do it only occasionally -- I'd probably do it more if I could turn the strobes down enough to allow it, but at minimal output I typically run f/8-f/11. Outdoors, I do it a lot.

I have the 70-200/2.8/IS and love it. Have even used it for outdoor portraits wide-open. But it has also made me addicted to fast glass.

It was the 28-70 f/2.8 that did it for me. With that heroin in my veins I had to have the 70-200 f/2.8. (I don't know if I should love you or hate you for that, Charles.) But more than the speed I really like the low distortion of those lenses.

I've considered buying the 17-40/4 but now feel that f/4 is too slow to "waste" money on. I feel silly for thinking that way but I do. Its a disease. I'm not sure how to cure it.

I know how it is :-). I opted for exactly that lens because I do not find myself taking the kinds of shots that need a fast lens with the wide-angle. It seemed a good price/performance tradeoff and I've been quite happy with it; in particular it has suprisingly low edge distortion when applied to a camera with a 1.6x cropping factor. YMMV, but I feel that's a very nice bang-for-the-buck lens -- although I thought long and hard about going for the EF-S 10-22 (but its ineligibility for the Canon triple rebate made the decision a lot easier).

mercphoto

Isolating subject

Sam wrote:

Would the 2.8 be usefull in primaraly outside photography to say isolate the subject?

Like this?



Canon 20D, 70-200mm/2.8L/IS lens at f/2.8, 1/320, ISO 400.

maczippy

I would say, if you can afford it, it's one of the most practical and hard wearing lenses you'll own (all zoom movement is internal). Yes the F4 is nice but the f2.8 is so so useful to have and will pay dividends when the conditions are less than perfect.

It's a good portrait lens (as others have eluded too), most of the shots on my site (whimwham and automoto) are shot with this lens and I personally don't find the weight a problem.

If you go into my news section and look at either of the first two stories there's a little easter egg gallery all images in that gallery were shot with the 70-200. It also works *really really well* with a 1.4TC as well.

To me it simply balances the 1D nicely and I like a weighty camera...



Andrew

BBones

Maczippy, consider me sold beyond a shadow of a doubt. The racing work you have on your site is exactly what I do and you mentioned that the 1.4xTC works great with it too.

20d w/ 70-200 IS 2.8 L and 1.4x TC here I come

maczippy wrote:

I would say, if you can afford it, it's one of the most practical and hard wearing lenses you'll own (all zoom movement is internal). Yes the F4 is nice but the f2.8 is so so useful to have and will pay dividends when the conditions are less than perfect.

It's a good portrait lens (as others have eluded too), most of the shots on my site (whimwham and automoto) are shot with this lens and I personally don't find the weight a problem.

If you go into my news section and look at either of the first two stories there's a little easter egg gallery all images in that gallery were shot with the 70-200. It also works *really really well* with a 1.4TC as well.

To me it simply balances the 1D nicely and I like a weighty camera...



Andrew

gus

andy wrote:

i use the 70-200 f/2.8L i.s., and i'll say.. imo it's one of canon's best. sharpness, color, contrast, it's aces.

portraits? sure, outdoors though.

go to jim fuglestad's site most of his portrait work (outdoor and some indoor) is done with this lens.

cheers

wow ...just when you think youve seen all the good shots on the net. That bloke is amazing.

mercphoto

maczippy wrote:

It also works *really really well* with a 1.4TC as well.

I borrowed a friend's 1.4TC a month ago to shoot another friend's Formula Mazda race. Yes, it works very nice. I actually bought a 1.4TC today at lunch (before I saw Andy's glowing endorsement).

Andy, do you like the 100-400 for motosports?

mercphoto

andy wrote:

i don't own the 100-400, 200mm is my longest reach at this point

Sorry, I meant Andy Wheeler (maczippy).

Andy

examples
some examples in this gallery of 70-200 f/2.8L i.s. shots

maczippy

mercphoto wrote:

Sorry, I meant Andy Wheeler (maczippy).

Hey man...I knew who you meant!

I don't have a 100-400 but have used one and know of a few who have with success I think it's a good lens too. (Check out this guy's site http://www.dlcphotography.net for what he does with a 100-400)

I have a 300f2.8 for all the "out of reach" stuff which again, tied with a 1.4 works like a charm for me...



Andrew

fish

maczippy wrote:

To me it simply balances the 1D nicely and I like a weighty camera...



Andrew

balances the 20D nicely too...and HOLY MOLY...that's a COOL shot!

Sam

andy wrote:

i use the 70-200 f/2.8L i.s., and i'll say.. imo it's one of canon's best. sharpness, color, contrast, it's aces.

portraits? sure, outdoors though.

go to jim fuglestad's site most of his portrait work (outdoor and some indoor) is done with this lens.

cheers

First let me thank everyone who responded, I appreciate your thoughts on this.

Well except for Lynn, I may never speak to her again for starting this.

Andy, Why do say "portraits? sure, outdoors though."

Does this lens have a phobia about being indoors?

Jim Fuglestad's site is well worth visiting.

Now , how to pay for this? If it were drugs instead of lenses, I could just buy a little extra and deal on the side, but that won't work with lenese.

IF I stop buying the cat his Fancy Feast, I could save about $1.00 a day, times 365 days, equals $365.00. Alas, even if I could explain it to him, he would not understand. God bless his dark soul.

OH, how about turning the heat off? It doen't get real cold here in northren California. Ok once in awhile it will hit 35 degrees F. After 2 seconds consideration, I can remember taking showers and jumping out into 30 / 40 degree temps. Too old for that anymore.

Darn, where is the green stuff gona come from? If only I was a politicial. I could create an issue then collect money to support / fight the issue. I tried, but I kept passing the ethics course.

I could knock off a couple of 7-11 stores, except they don't carry that kind of cash.

I already gave up drinking, smoking, gambling, and drugs.

I'm too old to sell my body, and I'm not doing the phone line thing anymore, way to disgusting.

No! I ain't giving up my coffee!

I was sure hopping there would be a magical answer. :cry

Wait, I hear something, very low, and forlorn. A call from the past. A wailling siren calling....calling. I can barely make the word out...........Visa.....Visa.......!!!! I will face the demon, I will do battle. I fear however, it's just a matter of time............................

Sam

fish

Sam wrote:

Now , how to pay for this? If it were drugs instead of lenses, I could just buy a little extra and deal on the side, but that won't work with lenese.

"lenese"?

I already gave up drinking, smoking, gambling, and drugs.

stick in the mud, eh?



You still have time to take advantage of the triple rebate. I got $150 rebate on my 70-200

Of course I had to buy a 20D and a 28-135 IS to do it :cry






So here's how I do it. I put it on a credit card (overnight shipping to get the near-instant gratification), then forget about it until the bill shows up, at which point you panic and start kicking children and pets. Hmmm...maybe I could have handled it a little differently.

ian408

fish wrote:

So here's how I do it. I put it on a credit card (overnight shipping to get the near-instant gratification), then forget about it until the bill shows up, at which point you panic and start kicking children and pets. Hmmm...maybe I could have handled it a little differently.

Fish, you are evil. Think of the children man (if you ever need a place to stay...)!

Hmmm....Sam, I thought you wanted a tripod head? How'd you get to the
70/200 f/2.8L from there? Let's not worry about that.

I love the 70/200. Great lens. Used it a bit last night even.

Ian

Stan

Does the IS make such a difference on the lens, I can see the value on the longer lenses but is it worth the extra $$ on the 70-200?

gus

maczippy wrote:

Hey man...I knew who you meant!

I don't have a 100-400 but have used one and know of a few who have with success I think it's a good lens too. (Check out this guy's site http://www.dlcphotography.net for what he does with a 100-400)

I have a 300f2.8 for all the "out of reach" stuff which again, tied with a 1.4 works like a charm for me...



Andrew

Andrew you have some really nice shots on your site...i took my time in there for sure. The tyre shot fish likes is my favorite also..nice & dark.

How do you get that Jordan so crisp at that speed. Im interested in getting some local racing shots here eventually. Do you swing the lens with the car at all or is the lens just that fast ?

Sam

ian408 wrote:

Fish, you are evil. Think of the children man (if you ever need a place to stay...)!

Hmmm....Sam, I thought you wanted a tripod head? How'd you get to the
70/200 f/2.8L from there? Let's not worry about that.

I love the 70/200. Great lens. Used it a bit last night even.

Ian

Oh, yeah the ball head for the tripod. I bought the Bogan. As for how I got to the 70/200 2.8L, well my want list goers on, and, on. :cry

I will have to hold off on the lens for a little bit longer though. Some how my credit card got charged yesterday, and a 22" Lacie monitor will be shipped shortly.

Sam

ian408

Sam wrote:

Oh, yeah the ball head for the tripod. I bought the Bogan. As for how I got to the 70/200 2.8L, well my want list goers on, and, on. :cry

I will have to hold off on the lens for a little bit longer though. Some how my credit card got charged yesterday, and a 22" Lacie monitor will be shipped shortly.

Sam

Funny how that happens

Ian