Options

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

nightspidynightspidy Registered Users Posts: 177 Major grins
edited August 27, 2007 in Cameras
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
Canon 30D & REB XT (thinking of converting to infrared), Sigma 10-20mm, Tammy 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 IS, Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 1.4 ext, and Sigma 4.5 fish eye along with a Bogen by Gitzo Tripod, Manfrotto Ball Head, MacBook PRO, several HOYA filters and a 2GB & 8GB San Disk, 160GB Sanho storage device (really cool btw)......wishing for a Canon 100-400mm. :wink

Comments

  • Options
    sirsloopsirsloop Registered Users Posts: 866 Major grins
    edited August 19, 2007
    good stuff!! Its a fantastic lens... I hope you spend a little extra and got a 1.4x teleconvert to go along with!

    Enjoy! thumb.gif
  • Options
    thebigskythebigsky Registered Users Posts: 1,052 Major grins
    edited August 19, 2007
    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
  • Options
    nightspidynightspidy Registered Users Posts: 177 Major grins
    edited August 20, 2007
    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! thumb.gif

    That was exactly my next thought! mwink.gif 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?
    Canon 30D & REB XT (thinking of converting to infrared), Sigma 10-20mm, Tammy 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 IS, Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 1.4 ext, and Sigma 4.5 fish eye along with a Bogen by Gitzo Tripod, Manfrotto Ball Head, MacBook PRO, several HOYA filters and a 2GB & 8GB San Disk, 160GB Sanho storage device (really cool btw)......wishing for a Canon 100-400mm. :wink
  • Options
    sirsloopsirsloop Registered Users Posts: 866 Major grins
    edited August 20, 2007
    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
  • Options
    nightspidynightspidy Registered Users Posts: 177 Major grins
    edited August 20, 2007
    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 wings.gif 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.
    Canon 30D & REB XT (thinking of converting to infrared), Sigma 10-20mm, Tammy 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 IS, Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 1.4 ext, and Sigma 4.5 fish eye along with a Bogen by Gitzo Tripod, Manfrotto Ball Head, MacBook PRO, several HOYA filters and a 2GB & 8GB San Disk, 160GB Sanho storage device (really cool btw)......wishing for a Canon 100-400mm. :wink
  • Options
    nightspidynightspidy Registered Users Posts: 177 Major grins
    edited August 20, 2007
    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)
    Canon 30D & REB XT (thinking of converting to infrared), Sigma 10-20mm, Tammy 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 IS, Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 1.4 ext, and Sigma 4.5 fish eye along with a Bogen by Gitzo Tripod, Manfrotto Ball Head, MacBook PRO, several HOYA filters and a 2GB & 8GB San Disk, 160GB Sanho storage device (really cool btw)......wishing for a Canon 100-400mm. :wink
  • Options
    lynnesitelynnesite Registered Users Posts: 747 Major grins
    edited August 23, 2007
    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. rolleyes1.gif
  • Options
    Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited August 23, 2007
    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
  • Options
    TerrenceTerrence Registered Users Posts: 477 Major grins
    edited August 24, 2007
    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.
    Terrence

    My photos

    "The future is an illusion, but a damned handy one." - David Allen
  • Options
    sirsloopsirsloop Registered Users Posts: 866 Major grins
    edited August 24, 2007
    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>
  • Options
    nightspidynightspidy Registered Users Posts: 177 Major grins
    edited August 26, 2007
    Decisions, decisions....
    Thanks everyone so much for your input, I really appreciate it. bowdown.gif

    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
    Canon 30D & REB XT (thinking of converting to infrared), Sigma 10-20mm, Tammy 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 IS, Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 1.4 ext, and Sigma 4.5 fish eye along with a Bogen by Gitzo Tripod, Manfrotto Ball Head, MacBook PRO, several HOYA filters and a 2GB & 8GB San Disk, 160GB Sanho storage device (really cool btw)......wishing for a Canon 100-400mm. :wink
  • Options
    claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited August 27, 2007
    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.

    nod.gif
  • Options
    sirsloopsirsloop Registered Users Posts: 866 Major grins
    edited August 27, 2007
    life is full of hard choices.. :D

    IMG_7816.JPG
Sign In or Register to comment.