f2.8 L IS! :thumbsup: Don't have to buy from retail shop if no money. Patiently wait at B&S forum for good deal. got mine at 2600 brand new non-grey local set. superb deal.
70mm-200mm which f stop to get?
- Thread starter dfstan
- Start date
- Status
slacker123 said:
Yup, that's the way to go.
The 135 is an incredible lens. Unbelievably sharp with 1.4xTC. So you actually get 2 great L lens in one. f2 bokeh is amazing at this focal length.
It is also much lighter and more discreet than the 70-200 f2.8. This is one good way to spend the savings by going with the f4.Depends on where you like to shoot.
For me, the 70-200mm focal lengths come in handy for outdoor shots, be it buildings, candid street shots, etc, during the day. So f/4 is quite adequate. I literally can't imagine walking around town taking shots with a boat-anchorish f/2.8 IS. It's an oxymoron actually. The appeal of Image Stabilization is to reduce camera shake in handheld shots, but the 3.2lbs weight simply isn't a huge fan for handholdability/portability.
Indoor use, I wouldn't even consider a 70-200mm focal length, unless I'm paid to do indoor event coverage. Even then, the 135mm f/2 would be a better candidate for serious indoor photography. For informal ones (like *urgghh* a colleague's wedding), I wouldn't even bother lugging multiple lens, just a Sigma 18-200mm would do.
For me, the 70-200mm focal lengths come in handy for outdoor shots, be it buildings, candid street shots, etc, during the day. So f/4 is quite adequate. I literally can't imagine walking around town taking shots with a boat-anchorish f/2.8 IS. It's an oxymoron actually. The appeal of Image Stabilization is to reduce camera shake in handheld shots, but the 3.2lbs weight simply isn't a huge fan for handholdability/portability.
Indoor use, I wouldn't even consider a 70-200mm focal length, unless I'm paid to do indoor event coverage. Even then, the 135mm f/2 would be a better candidate for serious indoor photography. For informal ones (like *urgghh* a colleague's wedding), I wouldn't even bother lugging multiple lens, just a Sigma 18-200mm would do.
Gunbucker said:
Great advice! I bought the Sigma 18-200 too with highly satisfactory results. Having shot test charts with the 70-200 f/4, I would say it is an incredible lens at that price!
The 2.8L is a good lens too with many capabilities. You can't really go wrong with any of the 3 brothers.
Is there any comparison between the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM? The Sigma is almost 1/2 the Canon's price but how about the built (i.e. durability)? Any known compatibility issues with FF or APS-C DSLRs?
Its up to you to decide that you want to carry a tripod along with your f/4 lens or you just want to carry your f/2.8 IS. With 200mm zoom and shady light conditions you definately require a tripod with f/4 without IS. I am a happy and satisfied owner of f/2.8 IS.
EOS350D said:
Great Combo :thumbsup:
I was thinking on this set-up except the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS cause of the weight & most importantly,the $$$ issue.No doubt it's one of canon's best lenses so if you can afford it and don't mind the weight then go for it.I can't afford so i use the f/4 only. :bsmilie:
Amongst the 3 versions, the F4 is the sharpest by a small margin. No doubt the IS version is a great workhorse lens.
However IS only helps with camera shake and not when higher shutter speeds are needed e.g. sports
However IS only helps with camera shake and not when higher shutter speeds are needed e.g. sports
- Status
Similar threads
