Price for Canon 70-200/f4?

[tomshen]

thx for ur info

[zapp!]

About 1200.

Rather u get a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 like that though...unless u want the portability.

[tomshen]

Quote: Originally posted by zapp! About 1200. Rather u get a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 like that though...unless u want the portability.

1200!!! Thought cheaper (S$1000) coz it's priced US$630 somewhere. Then I will really consider Sigma again

[zapp!]

What do u expect...it is a Canon L...
or for all Canon lenses for that matter. Except the 50mm f1.8.

[Kit]

You can get a new one from Camera Workshop for about $1100. Its grey though.

[victor]

Hi Kit

Do they sell their gray items to only the regulars or just anyone ?

[Adam Goi]

Quote: Originally posted by victor Hi Kit Do they sell their gray items to only the regulars or just anyone ?

Grey items are for those who want it...it's cheaper no doubt and the catch is the warranty is honoured only by TCW!

[Kit]

Quote: Originally posted by victor Hi Kit Do they sell their gray items to only the regulars or just anyone ?

I would think that they sell gray to anyone who wants it. I'm not sure if you have the option to buy with Canon warranty or not though.

[tomshen]

Users of Canon 70-200/f4, can share your experience pls?

[Kit]

Quote: Originally posted by tomshen Users of Canon 70-200/f4, can share your experience pls?

I used to own one. Its really a good sharp lens in a small package. However, I sold mine for the reason that I find it very difficult to handhold at 1/30. Its long but not heavy and stable enough for me to handhold compared to my 28-70. That's why I sold it. I seriously think that this lens deserves the IS more than the 2.8.

[David]

Although some compare the 70-200 to a Sigma, there're differences to be noted. As many say, it's an L and resale is much better than any 3rd parties. That's just the start...

The f/4 is a sharp lens, optically similar to its 2.8 brother. IMO, yah, I wish this lens had an IS. But then, it depends on your shooting style. Some amateurs go straight for the 2.8 version. Well, if you really need it, fine. But most of the time, I'm shooting at f/4 in good light and handholding is no problem. I wouldn't want to carry an f/2.8 "rock" around when I travel. It's buky too, attracts far too much attention.

The Sigma loses out in terms of focusing speed and distance too. You want L, you pay L price. But I can tell you you won't regret it.

[tomshen]

Is it possible to mount this lens to camrea on a tripod without the collar? Also, will f4 be enough to blur the background? Those f/2.8 owners, how often do you shoot at f2.8? At half weight of its big brother, it's definitely more mobile. Probably I can push ISO higher to compainsate one f stop.

[franciskc]

I shoot f2.8 most of the time.

[zapp!]

Quote: Originally posted by tomshen Is it possible to mount this lens to camrea on a tripod without the collar? Also, will f4 be enough to blur the background? Those f/2.8 owners, how often do you shoot at f2.8? At half weight of its big brother, it's definitely more mobile. Probably I can push ISO higher to compainsate one f stop.

In low light, always...i seldom stop beyond f8...the lens is that sharp...
(Canon 70-200)

[Simon]

Quote: Originally posted by tomshen Is it possible to mount this lens to camrea on a tripod without the collar? Also, will f4 be enough to blur the background? Those f/2.8 owners, how often do you shoot at f2.8? At half weight of its big brother, it's definitely more mobile. Probably I can push ISO higher to compainsate one f stop.

I own a Canon 70-200L f/2.8 but I hardly shoot at f/2.8 unless i'm covering indoor events that do not allow me to use FLASH.

I do agree the f/4 is a lot lighter, very mobile, but i do not want to own both Lens, using one for outdoor and one for indoor.

So the best chioces is still to get the 70-200L f/2.8 which allow me to shoot at f/2.8 when i need faster speed and outdooor at f/4 or more.

[David]

As Simon puts it, it depends on what kind of photography you're into. I hardly do indoor without flash or glamour shoots. So f/2.8 is an overkill.

As far as travelling is concerned as a serious amateur, the f/2.8 to me is too bulky and heavy as I hardly need f/2.8. Of cos, the idea is the bigger the aperture the better. But you have to factor in the weight and size also. It makes a world of difference. For eg, carrying the f/2.8 around in one hand may tire you out and takes away the enjoyment away in travel photography.

Personally, I feel with the new IS, it's definitely more worth it to pay the extra for the IS. For me, it's either the f/4 or f/2.8IS. Right now, I'm still enjoying the f/4 tremendously. Sad that it's a hardly spoken lens.