stjhie said:
maybe a second hand 300/f4 IS? a bit hard since its almost 2k new...
I have a 70-200 f/4 and use it for my portrait work. If you dont need the IS and shoot mainly in good light stick to the f/4.
Price per performance L Lens
- Thread starter stjhie
- Start date
- Status
maybe a second hand 300/f4 IS? a bit hard since its almost 2k new...
I have a 70-200 f/4 and use it for my portrait work. If you dont need the IS and shoot mainly in good light stick to the f/4.
My 2c:-
1. If you want sure hit tack sharp images, go for L.
2. If you need to carry the lens for a long time, go for f4L unless you have good muscle endurance.
3. If you want the very best performance including indoors even if it means carrying twice the weight of the lens plus a monopod if not a tripod, go for f2.8L
4. If budget is constrained, go for 70-300, bring along a tripod, shoot with higher ISO, and take extra shots.
1. If you want sure hit tack sharp images, go for L.
2. If you need to carry the lens for a long time, go for f4L unless you have good muscle endurance.
3. If you want the very best performance including indoors even if it means carrying twice the weight of the lens plus a monopod if not a tripod, go for f2.8L
4. If budget is constrained, go for 70-300, bring along a tripod, shoot with higher ISO, and take extra shots.
westwest1 said:
Weight is important if you intend to use the lens for long periods of time. I have gone to the zoo for 4 hours with a 100-400 L IS and shot for almost 5 hours with a 70-200f/4. I can safely say that if the 100-400 dindt have IS i would have lost alot of shots due to handshake..
raptor84 said:
I think after taking up photography, the next logical interest should be body building... to be able to sustain holding a 3kg SLR with big lenses for long hours!!! :bsmilie:
Me is still struggling to cope with the weight since I am slim bulit....
kcuf2 said:hahah..great minds think alike!
recently i really feel i m getting older and weaker and i have been jogging daily to build up stamina n hopefully go to gym to pack some more meat into my filmsy arms
Filmsy arms..... hahaha... :bsmilie: Then, me also very flimsy....
Now, I am slowly moving up the weight factor of my set up.. slowly increasing the weight, and then, the weight of lens till I am ok with it, and then, move on... should get some dummy bells to train too!!
I think Singaporean life style not healty enough.... should try to be more healthy..... need more excercises....
Halfmoon said:
Perhaps the only reason why I'm thankful for the UFP in the army is that it comes with this bonus. Get stronger and it's way easier to deal with the weight. I've noticed a big difference after about 6 months.
what's roughly the weight of the gear you guys bring on a walk around set and event set? including extra batteries, len(s), flash? Consider using your "L" lens as dumbells? haha
stjhie said:
Why not give a second hand 70-200/2.8L Non-IS a shot? A really solid performer and it's been appearing on BnS rapidly these couple of weeks at around 1.5k. It's 70-200 season now, so prices are down and consequently it's a good time to buy one. IMO, it whoops the butt of the 70-200/4L, which I upgraded from.
To be fair, the colour and sharpness look the same, but the extra stop makes heck of a lot of difference shooting in low light and also the ability to shoot at f2.8 for thinner DOF is a real boon sometimes. Well worth the additional 500 you'd need to fork out IMO.
IS is good, under certain circumstances, like low light static concerts or when using long telephotos like a 500 or 600mm, but for the most part it's overrated and can be done without. I'm really slim built as well(166, 52kg) but I've no problems using it for an extended period or getting off sharp images at 1/80 at 200mm. Just work on your technique and save the money you pay for the IS. If you really can't take it, get a monopod. Poor man's IS.
stjhie said:
My set up very simple.... Lowepro AW 200 series sling bag.... ex 420, extention tube, 70-300mm, 28-105mm, 50mm, 35mm, batteries, filters..... tripod silku 6600 I think... around 5kg I think... 2 body... all battries loaded, since film do not eat so much batteries.... omni bounce... note pad and pen.... EOS 300X & 88.
I got no L lens so no dumb bell to train with... maybe should follow army.. do SOC with your full pack (camera), holding your SLR and big lens!!! haha.......:bsmilie:
PnS said:
Hmmm but the 70-300 IS is proven to be much sharper than the 70-200f4l. Nevermind that it costs the same..
The sharpness can be subjective. My 70-200 is sharp enough for me and the fact that its internal zoom and focusing and has a ring USM helped make the decision for me.
If you click on my flockr link in my sig and browse to my mutts and mittens set you can see what a 70-200 f/4 can do when wide open, f/4.5 or f/5.6.
If you click on my flockr link in my sig and browse to my mutts and mittens set you can see what a 70-200 f/4 can do when wide open, f/4.5 or f/5.6.
Stoned said:Why not give a second hand 70-200/2.8L Non-IS a shot? A really solid performer and it's been appearing on BnS rapidly these couple of weeks at around 1.5k. It's 70-200 season now, so prices are down and consequently it's a good time to buy one. IMO, it whoops the butt of the 70-200/4L, which I upgraded from.
To be fair, the colour and sharpness look the same, but the extra stop makes heck of a lot of difference shooting in low light and also the ability to shoot at f2.8 for thinner DOF is a real boon sometimes. Well worth the additional 500 you'd need to fork out IMO.
IS is good, under certain circumstances, like low light static concerts or when using long telephotos like a 500 or 600mm, but for the most part it's overrated and can be done without. I'm really slim built as well(166, 52kg) but I've no problems using it for an extended period or getting off sharp images at 1/80 at 200mm. Just work on your technique and save the money you pay for the IS. If you really can't take it, get a monopod. Poor man's IS.
agreed...get the 70-200 non-IS...its a very good lens....worth the money....
unseen said:
I am eyeing on the 70-300mm IS.. but feel the bulit quality at that price is a bit weak.. 70-200mm is better, but short of 100mm, since I am film, FF, and was shooting sports....
Like 70 - 300mm IS DO bulid quality, but too expensive...
Ended up.. going to buy my 85mm f1.8... hahaha.. :bsmilie:
- Status
Similar threads
