Nice pictures, how far back were you standing to take them?
For the two side shots I was at the side of the church against the wall... for the one looking from behind the bride and groom I was at the back of the church, but the church wasn't super long or anything. No flash usage for any of those either obviously
3 of the 4 Canon 70-200 lenses are now promotionally priced with instant rebates through January 17, 2009. The 2.8 L IS is $125 off, and has me very interested. The weight has me concerned, but I've walked around for hours with my 400 5.6 attached (a few ounces shy of the 2.8 L IS). But the F/4 L IS also looks promising and is of later design.
I won't be shooting sports with it, but do enough low-light shooting outdoors to seriously consider the 2.8 over the 4. Will be occasionally adding a 1.4 TC.
2.8 L IS pros:
• Should be faster focusing in lower light (depending on body used)
• Takes 77 mm filters (mine are all 77)
• Resale has been traditionally good, if I would ever need to sell it.
• With a 1.4x TC, focusing accuracy and speed should still be decent
• One more stop of creative DOF and bokeh
2.8 L IS cons:
• Higher buy-in
• Heavier by about 2x
• 2 to 2.5 stop IS advantage vs. 3 to 3.5 stop for the f/4 version
I do like to have a great aperture all the time but with new bodies, which can use hight ISO with sucess, I wonder if such an expensive lens is a must for an amateur.
On the other hand the 77 mm diameter may be an advantage in some occasions when we have other lenses with this diameter like you and myself.
Only one more thought: the weight of the lens is the result of more sophisticated and better glass and this is important when we are demanding about our pictures...
The other day someone told me Nikon has now a better lens within this range. Doesn't matter does it ?
3 of the 4 Canon 70-200 lenses are now promotionally priced with instant rebates through January 17, 2009. The 2.8 L IS is $125 off, and has me very interested. The weight has me concerned, but I've walked around for hours with my 400 5.6 attached (a few ounces shy of the 2.8 L IS). But the F/4 L IS also looks promising and is of later design.
I won't be shooting sports with it, but do enough low-light shooting outdoors to seriously consider the 2.8 over the 4. Will be occasionally adding a 1.4 TC.
2.8 L IS pros:
• Should be faster focusing in lower light (depending on body used)
• Takes 77 mm filters (mine are all 77)
• Resale has been traditionally good, if I would ever need to sell it.
• With a 1.4x TC, focusing accuracy and speed should still be decent
• One more stop of creative DOF and bokeh
2.8 L IS cons:
• Higher buy-in
• Heavier by about 2x
• 2 to 2.5 stop IS advantage vs. 3 to 3.5 stop for the f/4 version
Anyone with experience using both of these models here? I'd like some input to help make a decent decision.
I own the 70-200/2.8 L non-IS and have used the 70-200mm/4.0 L IS before.
The 2.8 is a very fine lens and I love it's bokeh at f2.8 but it is simply too
heavy and an attention catcher everywhere I go. If I was shooting more
sports or events I might decide to keep the 2.8 lens but since I am not I
am trading it right now against the much lighter 4.0 IS. I plan to use it
on the 5D II.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
I own the 70-200/2.8 L non-IS and have used the 70-200mm/4.0 L IS before.
The 2.8 is a very fine lens and I love it's bokeh at f2.8 but it is simply too
heavy and an attention catcher everywhere I go. If I was shooting more
sports or events I might decide to keep the 2.8 lens but since I am not I
am trading it right now against the much lighter 4.0 IS. I plan to use it on the 5D II.
That's where mine would be headed too, but also useful for my 1.6 crop bodies for the reach.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
You will not be wrong with the 2.8L IS it is amazing! U cannot beat it. If you have the money then go for it. If you need to skimp on money then go for the cheaper...
Either way know that money for something that should last 10 years is not a big differentiator...
1550/10 = 155
1000/10 = 100
Not huge differentiation
The weights isn't a big deal btw... occasionally if i am shooting for an 8 hours day it gets heavy but the benefits outweigh the problems... weight shouldn't be an issue or else buy a powershot!
3 of the 4 Canon 70-200 lenses are now promotionally priced with instant rebates through January 17, 2009. The 2.8 L IS is $125 off, and has me very interested. The weight has me concerned, but I've walked around for hours with my 400 5.6 attached (a few ounces shy of the 2.8 L IS). But the F/4 L IS also looks promising and is of later design.
I won't be shooting sports with it, but do enough low-light shooting outdoors to seriously consider the 2.8 over the 4. Will be occasionally adding a 1.4 TC.
2.8 L IS pros:
• Should be faster focusing in lower light (depending on body used)
• Takes 77 mm filters (mine are all 77)
• Resale has been traditionally good, if I would ever need to sell it.
• With a 1.4x TC, focusing accuracy and speed should still be decent
• One more stop of creative DOF and bokeh
2.8 L IS cons:
• Higher buy-in
• Heavier by about 2x
• 2 to 2.5 stop IS advantage vs. 3 to 3.5 stop for the f/4 version
That's where mine would be headed too, but also useful for my 1.6 crop bodies for the reach.
The 5D II seems to be really good at high ISO's. If you don't need the
background blurring capability of an f2.8 lens there is your next strong
point for the 4.0 IS. The 4.0 IS version also performs extremely good
wide open on the 1Ds III, beating the other three 70-200 L zooms -
especially in the corners. The difference is already visible on the 16MP 1Ds II:
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Looks as if the 4 bests the 2.8 in every focal length and aperture by a small margin in the resolution tests. And very little if any visible CA from the 4. Thanks for that comparison.
I will try a friend's 2.8 L IS out soon to give it a whirl, and to figure out if the additional weight is trouble. I weigh only 135lbs., so a 3½ pound lens is a bit much to carry on the cam.
I just discovered that the tripod foot that is $150 and optional on the f/4 might just be the same exact foot that I already own for my 400 5.6.
OTOH, I also just read that the case of the f/4 is plastic. Hmmmm. I don't know what to think about that.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Looks as if the 4 bests the 2.8 in every focal length and aperture by a small margin in the resolution tests. And very little if any visible CA from the 4. Thanks for that comparison.
I will try a friend's 2.8 L IS out soon to give it a whirl, and to figure out if the additional weight is trouble. I weigh only 135lbs., so a 3½ pound lens is a bit much to carry on the cam.
I just discovered that the tripod foot that is $150 and optional on the f/4 might just be the same exact foot that I already own for my 400 5.6.
OTOH, I also just read that the case of the f/4 is plastic. Hmmmm. I don't know what to think about that.
I am just marginally heavier than you - 155 lbs only. It seems not a major problem for me to carry the F2.8 with 5D body. Many times I mounted the 2x behind the F2.8 for bird shooting and walked for about 4 - 5 hours.
The tripod foot is very useful and I can use it to hook on the belt so the weight will be taken off from the shoulder.
F4 is lighter and smaller but can use 1.4X TC only (2X become F8 may be too slow)
I don't think the F4 is plastic, the feeling is very similar to F2.8.
OTOH, I also just read that the case of the f/4 is plastic. Hmmmm. I don't know what to think about that.
Where did you hear this? Every time I've heard the f4s described its "same superb build quality as the 2.8 version." Maybe they're talking about the carrying case canon includes in the box?
Sometimes painted over magnesium can feel strange to the touch, since it doesn't conduct heat quite as instantly as bare stainless steel, for instance.
Where did you hear this? Every time I've heard the f4s described its "same superb build quality as the 2.8 version." Maybe they're talking about the carrying case canon includes in the box?
Sometimes painted over magnesium can feel strange to the touch, since it doesn't conduct heat quite as instantly as bare stainless steel, for instance.
It was in a B&H customer review of the 4. So that doesn't mean it is a synthetic casing.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
It was in a B&H customer review of the 4. So that doesn't mean it is a synthetic casing.
Unfortunately Ken Rockwell says it is plastic. I bet the poster is quoting his assessment.
I have both the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM and the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and they appear to be identical in build quality (except that the f4 IS is weather sealed). I would bet that there is some plastic in both. I do not read any incidence of difference in repair history between any of the EF 70-200mm "L" lenses.
I use the 70-200mm, f4L IS USM in my travel kit so it goes everywhere. Even though I have only had it since the frst of the year (2008) I have great confidence in it and I give it no special consideration.
So I now have a 2.8 L IS attached. Yes, it is as heavy as I had feared for walking around for a few hours, whch is exactly what I first did with the thing. What I hadn't considered was the girth of the 2.8 vs. the 4. I'm small, so it is difficult to grasp around the lens casing to carry it without my hand having spasms in short order. The 4 shouldn't cause that.
IS off. 1/13 f/2.8 ISO100
IS on. 1/13 f/2.8 ISO100
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
I traded my f/4 IS for the f/2.8 IS and I certainly miss the size and weight of the f/4 no doubt. I am really pleased with the performance at f/2.8 though and hoping that satisfaction persists.
Is that from some sort of Hong Kong-based Tomb Raider re-enactment?
It is in Singapore. Xbox hired Alison Carrol, an experienced competitive gymnast from UK to the stage.
Unfortunately, I was late to the show and no chance get closer. Went upstairs and using the 200 to shoot.
It was low light and far. Grin allow only 100K files. so downsized and saved in low res. If you want the sharp, nice professional version, that is available, but with $$$$$$$ :ivar
Comments
http://rljslick.smugmug.com/
For the two side shots I was at the side of the church against the wall... for the one looking from behind the bride and groom I was at the back of the church, but the church wasn't super long or anything. No flash usage for any of those either obviously
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
I won't be shooting sports with it, but do enough low-light shooting outdoors to seriously consider the 2.8 over the 4. Will be occasionally adding a 1.4 TC.
2.8 L IS pros:
• Should be faster focusing in lower light (depending on body used)
• Takes 77 mm filters (mine are all 77)
• Resale has been traditionally good, if I would ever need to sell it.
• With a 1.4x TC, focusing accuracy and speed should still be decent
• One more stop of creative DOF and bokeh
2.8 L IS cons:
• Higher buy-in
• Heavier by about 2x
• 2 to 2.5 stop IS advantage vs. 3 to 3.5 stop for the f/4 version
4.0 pros:
• Lots lighter for carrying around.
• Lower buy-in cost
4.0 cons:
• Filter size is 67mm
• No tripod foot
• Plastic
Anyone with experience using both of these models here? I'd like some input to help make a decent decision.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
I do like to have a great aperture all the time but with new bodies, which can use hight ISO with sucess, I wonder if such an expensive lens is a must for an amateur.
On the other hand the 77 mm diameter may be an advantage in some occasions when we have other lenses with this diameter like you and myself.
Only one more thought: the weight of the lens is the result of more sophisticated and better glass and this is important when we are demanding about our pictures...
The other day someone told me Nikon has now a better lens within this range.
Get it !
I own the 70-200/2.8 L non-IS and have used the 70-200mm/4.0 L IS before.
The 2.8 is a very fine lens and I love it's bokeh at f2.8 but it is simply too
heavy and an attention catcher everywhere I go. If I was shooting more
sports or events I might decide to keep the 2.8 lens but since I am not I
am trading it right now against the much lighter 4.0 IS. I plan to use it
on the 5D II.
― Edward Weston
That's where mine would be headed too, but also useful for my 1.6 crop bodies for the reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
You will not be wrong with the 2.8L IS it is amazing! U cannot beat it. If you have the money then go for it. If you need to skimp on money then go for the cheaper...
Either way know that money for something that should last 10 years is not a big differentiator...
1550/10 = 155
1000/10 = 100
Not huge differentiation
The weights isn't a big deal btw... occasionally if i am shooting for an 8 hours day it gets heavy but the benefits outweigh the problems... weight shouldn't be an issue or else buy a powershot!
http://stridephoto.carbonmade.com
The 5D II seems to be really good at high ISO's. If you don't need the
background blurring capability of an f2.8 lens there is your next strong
point for the 4.0 IS. The 4.0 IS version also performs extremely good
wide open on the 1Ds III, beating the other three 70-200 L zooms -
especially in the corners. The difference is already visible on the 16MP 1Ds II:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
― Edward Weston
I will try a friend's 2.8 L IS out soon to give it a whirl, and to figure out if the additional weight is trouble. I weigh only 135lbs., so a 3½ pound lens is a bit much to carry on the cam.
I just discovered that the tripod foot that is $150 and optional on the f/4 might just be the same exact foot that I already own for my 400 5.6.
OTOH, I also just read that the case of the f/4 is plastic. Hmmmm. I don't know what to think about that.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
I am just marginally heavier than you - 155 lbs only. It seems not a major problem for me to carry the F2.8 with 5D body. Many times I mounted the 2x behind the F2.8 for bird shooting and walked for about 4 - 5 hours.
The tripod foot is very useful and I can use it to hook on the belt so the weight will be taken off from the shoulder.
F4 is lighter and smaller but can use 1.4X TC only (2X become F8 may be too slow)
I don't think the F4 is plastic, the feeling is very similar to F2.8.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Sometimes painted over magnesium can feel strange to the touch, since it doesn't conduct heat quite as instantly as bare stainless steel, for instance.
It was in a B&H customer review of the 4. So that doesn't mean it is a synthetic casing.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Nice photo the 1.st one.
But the 2.ed is - not only nice - but very tender. Look at the concentration of that fellow !:D
Unfortunately Ken Rockwell says it is plastic. I bet the poster is quoting his assessment.
I have both the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM and the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and they appear to be identical in build quality (except that the f4 IS is weather sealed). I would bet that there is some plastic in both. I do not read any incidence of difference in repair history between any of the EF 70-200mm "L" lenses.
I use the 70-200mm, f4L IS USM in my travel kit so it goes everywhere. Even though I have only had it since the frst of the year (2008) I have great confidence in it and I give it no special consideration.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I saw that too, a special connection and bond that any parent would love to preserve forever, and the photo handles that task nicely.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
IS off. 1/13 f/2.8 ISO100
IS on. 1/13 f/2.8 ISO100
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
I traded my f/4 IS for the f/2.8 IS and I certainly miss the size and weight of the f/4 no doubt. I am really pleased with the performance at f/2.8 though and hoping that satisfaction persists.
30 meters away from the second storey, no flash, just the stage light, handheld.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Is it my monitor or the face is not sharp but her front knee is ? ...
It is in Singapore. Xbox hired Alison Carrol, an experienced competitive gymnast from UK to the stage.
Unfortunately, I was late to the show and no chance get closer. Went upstairs and using the 200 to shoot.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
It was low light and far. Grin allow only 100K files. so downsized and saved in low res.
If you want the sharp, nice professional version, that is available, but with $$$$$$$ :ivar
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Canon 20D + 70-200 f/2,8 IS L USM + overcast day
The EXIF says the photos were shot in 2000. Not true. The camera just came from Canon Portugal with a new curtain and I didn't verify the date.
Hi Antonio! This last looks like "instant Gaudi" !!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix