I finally got it!!! Just wanted to tell people who are into cameras and stuff...

nightspidy

Yesterday I finally got my canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens. This is my first pro-lens and I have to say, this thing is a BEAST (rrrahhhhhrrr). Not only in weight, but in price too. I paid about $2500 CDN for it after taxes. I feel like it is going to "rip" the lens threading right off my rebel xt cause it's so heavy. I can't wait to try out this lens....I just have to wait until I actually have time OFF from work - more than just a day and a half (LOL) :huh I also broke down and bought a Crumpler Whickey and Cox Backpack - a beast in its own right. Thanks for letting me share my excitement. :rofl

sirsloop

good stuff!! Its a fantastic lens... I hope you spend a little extra and got a 1.4x teleconvert to go along with!

Enjoy!

thebigsky

I hope you enjoy it, it's a very good lens, congratulations, it's a great feeling when you finally get something you've always wanted.

Charlie

nightspidy

sirsloop wrote:

good stuff!! Its a fantastic lens... I hope you spend a little extra and got a 1.4x teleconvert to go along with!

Enjoy!

That was exactly my next thought! Do you already have this set-up? I was trying to decide if I should get the 100-400mm next or just add the 1.4 converter. What's your opinion?

sirsloop

Two completely different lenses... the fixed 2.8 aperture of the 70-200 makes it a lot better suited for sports. The 100-400 is like the ultimate zoo lens

nightspidy

thebigsky wrote:

I hope you enjoy it, it's a very good lens, congratulations, it's a great feeling when you finally get something you've always wanted.

Charlie

Thanks I've been waiting and saving for a very long time for this lens. It's a real treat. I'm aiming towards investing in good lens' and then look into upgrading my camera body.

nightspidy

sirsloop wrote:

Two completely different lenses... the fixed 2.8 aperture of the 70-200 makes it a lot better suited for sports. The 100-400 is like the ultimate zoo lens

I'm just wondering if I should even bother investing in the 100-400mm. If I just add the 1.4 converter, plus the 1.6 conversion facter from the rebel xt, the focal length is comparable right? With the 1.4 converter added onto the 70-200, do you know what the aperture would be? (I'm still new to all of this)

lynnesite

My one of those is my "baby". I have the 1.4x converter as well. Happy shooting! I have healthy biceps/triceps/delts from 3 years of using one, around 150K shots.

Scott_Quier

nightspidy wrote:

I'm just wondering if I should even bother investing in the 100-400mm. If I just add the 1.4 converter, plus the 1.6 conversion facter from the rebel xt, the focal length is comparable right? With the 1.4 converter added onto the 70-200, do you know what the aperture would be? (I'm still new to all of this)

The 1.4 TC looses you one stop, so your max aperture would be f/4.0

Terrence

The 70-200 with a 1.4xTC = 98-280, so it's still a much shorter reach than the 100-400. Both lenses (all lenses) take advantage of the 1.6 crop factor, so you need to compare with or without the crop factor. So, if you include the crop factor...

70-200 f/2.8 w/ 1.4xTC -> 70*1.4*1.6 = 156.8, 200*1.4*1.6 = 448 -> 156.8-448 f/4

100-400 f/4-5.6 -> 100*1.6 = 160, 400*1.6 = 640 -> 160-640 f/4-5.6

100-400 f/4-5.6 w/ 1.4xTC -> 100*1.4*1.6 = 224, 400*1.4*1.6 = 896 -> 224-896 f/5.6-8


The main advantage of the 70-200 w/ or w/out the TC is the wide and constant aperture. If you really need the reach, then the 100-400 is a must. I will say I am not thrilled with the sharpness of the 100-400. I'm happy with it, but not thrilled. I'd much rather have a 300 f/2.8 or 500 f/4, but that's a whole different price bracket.

sirsloop

lol... yeah a 300/2.8L is an entirely different level of lens. You're talkin double the cost of a 100-400L which is already way up there. It takes a 2x converter nicely tho getting you 600/5.6... or 960mm on a 1.6 body!!!!! A nice option for little extra reach would be a 300/4 IS and a 1.4xTC... which would cover you to 420/5.6. You're bottomed out at 280mm on with your current setup which is fine, the prime setup would put you out there considerably farther. At about a grand its a heck of a setup too!

I personally would get the 1.4x TC on your 70-200 and go shoot. You may find thats its more than long enough for what you shoot. I'll admit a the 300/4IS setup I listed above would be sweet to have, but I really would have limited uses for it at the present time. I can still go shoot sports and make zoo trip with my 70-200/2.8L. Its sharp enough so I can crop down to 400mm.

Oh... and now that you have a ~6lbs camera you may want to get an optech strap -> http://www.procameragear.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=30&products_id=141

its <borat> vary nahhhcee </borat>

nightspidy

Decisions, decisions....
Thanks everyone so much for your input, I really appreciate it.

I think I will end up adding the 1.4 converter. By doing this, I am *only* investing another $400-$500 as opposed to just buying the 100-400 at a cost of $1700 and since I have just spent $2500, I'm kinda broke, so this makes sense right now. Plus, if I like what I get with the converter, then I've saved some cash. Also, I'm not really sure about the 100-400 - I wish it was a little faster, now that I have the 2.8.

So far, I must say I LOVE the 70-200 2.8 IS lens! Now I know what people are talking about on this forum. I finally had the chance to use it at a horse-jumping show and this beast can perform! It has truly exceeded my expectations. I'm still new at the whole photography thing, but compared to my other lenses, but I can really see the difference. I hope to put some of my pics up soon for some feedback. Thanks again everyone!:D

claudermilk

nightspidy wrote:

So far, I must say I LOVE the 70-200 2.8 IS lens! Now I know what people are talking about on this forum.

sirsloop

life is full of hard choices..