File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I have been obsessing over the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. With the current lens rebate, I feel that I may pull the trigger on it right after Christmas.

My friend seems to be trying to convince me to save the money and go for a different long telephoto. He has the 70-300 f/4-5.6 and keeps telling me how it is all he needs.

Also, there is the 70-200 f/4L IS. So should I go all out and shoot for the 2.8L or go for one of the more affordable ones, like the 4L or my friend's 70-300?

P.S.: I have gotten the chance to use the 70-200 2.8L a couple of times, which is why I am so crazy about it.
>> Anonymous
the f/4 IS is a bargain at $1025 right now

the rebates last until january, use the 2.8 again but stop it to f/4, if it works for you, then buy the f/4 IS and save $550
>> Anonymous
>P.S.: I have gotten the chance to use the 70-200 2.8L a couple of times, which is why I am so crazy about it.

If you like it, go for it; nothing better than having gear you actually dig. F/4 IS is lighter, but that's the only pat advantage. 70-300 isn't as technically good, and subjective opinions are just that. It's slower and longer.
>> Anonymous
for image quality

70-200 f/4 IS > 70-200 f/2.8 > 70-200 f/2.8 IS > 70-200 f/4 > 70-300 IS > 55-250 IS > 75-300
>> Anonymous
get the 2.8, or everytime you have to have a longer than par exposure you will whinge about it
>> SAGE
SAGE gear thread
>> Nikon
     File :-(, x)
Who needs f/4 models? Pros only use f/2.8.

You can have 7 different crop standard zooms instead.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.5Focal Length (35mm Equiv)39 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:02:07 19:26:46Exposure Time1/4 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/16.0Brightness5.4 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length26.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height349RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Anonymous
don't bother with IS, get the 70-200 f/2.8
>> Anonymous
Why not borrow your friends 70-300 and see if it does what you want it to? Then rent the 70-200 and see how you feel about it. Both have tradeoffs. The 70-300 is a significantly longer, but slower lens, but the 70-200 has undisputedly higher image quality (though not everyone has skills to take advantage of that higher quality) - to say nothing of significantly higher cost.

Test them both and see which one is right for you. There is no situation in which I would get the 70-200 f/4. If you are going to accept the loss of more than an f-stop, don't accept the loss of 100-mm in reach as well. FWIW, I have the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS - and I am very happy with it. The IS does work, and largely makes up for the difference in aperture size.

Remember that while some people get very snotty about L series glass, that both lenses are Canon glass - neither one is going to be junk.
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
I say go all out get the 70-200 2.8L
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>282564
with the IS. If you can afford it, it doesn't hurt to have it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>282560Remember that while some people get very snotty about L series glass, that both lenses are Canon glass - neither one is going to be junk.

lol... sounds like a case of jealousfag who lies to himself about his shit lens

the 70-200 with a fucking TC strapped to it is much better than the 70-300

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2006:11:11 18:54:09Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1835Image Height2069
>> Anonymous
I just recently got this lens and I love her. use on a 40D IS seems to make a huge difference when taking pictures at the 200mm end was shooting 1/60 and on the shot with IS on it was sharp as, and planning on getting a extender for more reach when needed (during day)after I get used to the lens a bit more.
>> Anonymous
>>282627

the 2.8 or the 4?
>> Anonymous
Get a 70-200 IS, they're fucking amazing lenses and you'll want the IS. Only question is whether you can justify spending so much more on a 2.8 or not.
>> Anonymous
>>282775
For those shooting sports, wildlife, or anything that moves, IS is useless cause you need a high shutter speed to freeze the action anyhow, camera shake is irrelevant.

For careful portraits or still life, IS would come in handy for low shutter-speeds to balance the ambient light with fill flash.

Depends on what you do.
>> Anonymous
i use the 70-200 f/4 IS because:

-don't need the LOL shallower DOF because i'm at f/8 anyway
-it's cheaper than the 2.8
-it's got better image quality
>> Anonymous
>>282807

i have heard this multiple times, that the f4 has better image quality than the f2.8 because the f4 is newer. is this true?

btw, whichever one i get, i am definitely getting the one that has IS.
>> SAGE
>>282914
SAGE GEAR THREAD
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>282914
>> Anonymous
>>282920
Hey Dilbert, what does this powerpoint slide mean?
>> Anonymous
HIGHER IS BETTER
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'd get the 70-200 f/4L IS over the others.

I've used all of the lenses in this thread and i would rank them like this only by sharpness:
70-200 4L IS > 70-200 2.8L > 70-200 4L > 70-200 2.8L IS > 70-300

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2912Image Height4368Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:09:02 15:35:26Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/1.2Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/1.2Exposure Bias-1/3 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width426Image Height640RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>283481

my plan is to use it for when i assist at weddings, and also versatile uses like landscapes, nature, etc. basically, whatever i feel like shooting. it will be my go-to telephoto lens. but also take into account that it will be used for weddings.

still better to go with the F4 IS than the 2.8 IS?

on a side note: are the resale values of L lenses really high if they are kept in good shape? i figure they should be... it's just a thought, in case i pick either the 2.8 IS or 4 IS and do not like it as much as i had hoped. i wanna make sure i can get my money back through ebay or whatever.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>282556

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2005:04:07 14:28:32Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0.3 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length51.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width401Image Height600
>> Anonymous
If you're going to be shooting weddings, you need the f/2.8, and the IS wouldn't hurt.
>> Anonymous
>>283593If you're going to be shooting weddings, you'd hav a flash and a fast lens wouldn't matter.

fixed
>> OiD
>>283587
Nice table
>> Anonymous
>>283602

can't use a flash during most ceremonies.