Why are ppl still buying 70-200mm 2.8 IS ??
- Thread starter TeckHua
- Start date
- Status
i think so too. i always scoff when newbies say that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is the ultimate lens because it has both a large aperture and IS that supposedly makes it very versatile.
there are so many better telephotos out there like the 85L, 135L, 200L, 300L.
Those primes definitely have better image quality basically bcoz they are primes. Some people can do away with the zoom versatility, so they go for the primes. On the other hand, there are others, myself included, who value the zoom versatility more, so we get the 70-200mm. In the end all lens will be good for a person if they best suit his/her particular needs
If you really want sharpness, IQ, Color. Just get a prime lol. 135 F2, 200 F2.8, 200 F2 IS(this wil blow your wallet though ^^) They are unrivaled in sharpness and are fast to boot. They AF faster too. Personally think 70-200 F2.8 IS is a overrated lens when it comes to quality. However if you are looking for versatility in this range, I guess there really isnt a better lens. F2.8 with IS makes a good combination. BTW if I was to hand hold, 70-200 F4 IS is the way. Anyone who held the f2.8 IS knows this is not the lens to hold long lol.
"A Prime lens always beat Zoom lens in term of sharpness." ... i thought is brightness. Anyway for wide open aperture, any of those is not for sharpness anymore to compare
primes are generally sharper than zooms at all apertures
(notable exception: Nikon 14-24 f2.8)
primes also have larger apertures than zooms.
brighness and sharpness are different properties...
Light conditions doesn't demand IS
A case of sitting in the middle of the desert and saying don't need a digcab or dehumidifier. :bsmilie:
if you need to ask the question between the two lenses, then you don't need the more expensive of the two.
70-200f2.8IS/NonIS & 70-200f4IS/NonIS
Let say if all the family use at f4, which has the best IQ
Let say if all the family use at f4, which has the best IQ
just to confirm. anywhere some may misleading using f2.8 setting compare to a f4
some theory i always keep to when choosing lens.....
1. if i can't spot the difference in IQ between different brands of same lens (e.g. Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and Sony 70200G F2.8), i will go for the cheaper one.
2. reviews are used to help me lookout for the problems of the lens when testing, NOT to decide which lens to get.
If you can't see why anyone need the 70-200mm 2.8 IS, you probably don't need it yet. Although this lens is used for portraits too, it is commonly used at concerts, sports where capturing a usable image (read: not necessarily the best sharpness, colors, etc) and versatility of the zoom is important. No doubt primes or other lens are sharper or may offer better IQ but if these lens can't let you capture a usable image or obtain the composition you want, they are pointless. (a bit like using the aircraft carrier with all its firepower and airpower to fight a naval war in Straits of Johor where less-armed but agile destroyers or frigates will be a better choice).
Hope my "thesis" enlightens you....haha :sweatsm:
1. if i can't spot the difference in IQ between different brands of same lens (e.g. Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and Sony 70200G F2.8), i will go for the cheaper one.
2. reviews are used to help me lookout for the problems of the lens when testing, NOT to decide which lens to get.
If you can't see why anyone need the 70-200mm 2.8 IS, you probably don't need it yet. Although this lens is used for portraits too, it is commonly used at concerts, sports where capturing a usable image (read: not necessarily the best sharpness, colors, etc) and versatility of the zoom is important. No doubt primes or other lens are sharper or may offer better IQ but if these lens can't let you capture a usable image or obtain the composition you want, they are pointless. (a bit like using the aircraft carrier with all its firepower and airpower to fight a naval war in Straits of Johor where less-armed but agile destroyers or frigates will be a better choice).
Hope my "thesis" enlightens you....haha :sweatsm:
under good light (almost high noon actually)...
f/2.8
f/5
Look at the street sign texture/pattern.
Even with such a small crop copy, the details of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is quite substantial when stopped down.
I still think it's a very good lens, but I think it's due for a upgrade, the Nikkor version offers better sharpness and DOF transition is smoother IMO.
f/2.8
f/5
Look at the street sign texture/pattern.
Even with such a small crop copy, the details of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is quite substantial when stopped down.
I still think it's a very good lens, but I think it's due for a upgrade, the Nikkor version offers better sharpness and DOF transition is smoother IMO.
under good light (almost high noon actually)...
f/2.8
f/5
Look at the street sign texture/pattern.
Even with such a small crop copy, the details of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is quite substantial when stopped down.
I still think it's a very good lens, but I think it's due for a upgrade, the Nikkor version offers better sharpness and DOF transition is smoother IMO.
It will be better if someone can post a series of same pics using the 4 difference lens (70-200f2.8IS/NonIS & 70-200f4IS/NonIS)at f4.
Last edited:
the dilemma exists for all other focal lengths - the wider the aperture the lower the quality of the image.
but for those who know how to utilise f2.8 then you'll understand the value. the f2.8 with IS opens up more opportunities for lowlight and at max zoom distance shots.
and others value sharpness less than the norm. in general most beginners/casual photographers tend to overemphasize sharpness.
of course you can make do with f4L without IS. but if you shoot to the lens' limit, then you'll know that it is limited by its own features.
but for those who know how to utilise f2.8 then you'll understand the value. the f2.8 with IS opens up more opportunities for lowlight and at max zoom distance shots.
and others value sharpness less than the norm. in general most beginners/casual photographers tend to overemphasize sharpness.
of course you can make do with f4L without IS. but if you shoot to the lens' limit, then you'll know that it is limited by its own features.
but if you can really find the limit of the lens, you are a :thumbsup: photographer
and know how to work around to overcome the limitations, :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: photographer
depends on what you're shooting e.g. try going for paper thin depth-of-field candid shots and you'll easily reach the limit of the F4 and the F2.8 will do better, especially if the subject is moving.
its a tool. up to user to find the good point and use it.
its a tool. up to user to find the good point and use it.
- Status
Similar threads
