File :-(, x, )
anon
what do you guys think about this?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:11:03 11:45:30Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width200Image Height438
>> anon
it's the canon 70-200mm f4
>> anon
the f/2.8 is better
>> anon
it is but i'm just an amature! do you think it's good for me then?
>> sage sage
Samefag much? GTFO
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
lulz were had
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
this suits your needs better
>> Foca !ZPmgSZGczM
>>242816

that one doesn't have IS. It's good for it's price though.
>> Anonymous
I've used three of the four flavors of the 70-200; the f/4, f/2.8 and f/4 IS.

The f/4 takes very nice photos but it likes a lot of light. The f/2.8 was nice for the extra stop but got noticeably heavy after a while. I settled with the f/4 IS. I like the construction, weather sealing, four stops of extra stabilization and generally great optics.

tl;dr They all take great photos, it's just up to you on what you want to spend and for what features.
>> Anonymous
I have the f/2.8 IS version. It's heavy, but not too heavy to carry around for many hours unless you're a weakling. And it takes fantastic photos.

Though incidentally the best photo I've ever taken was with a f/5.6 200mm lens I bought off ebay for $89, not with the $1,800 lens. Go figure.
>> Anonymous
>>243184
Oh. I heard the best photos were taken by the photographer.
>> Anonymous
>>243184
Just out of curiosity, mind to share it with us ?
>> Anonymous
I've not had any problems with the weight of the 70-200 2.8
>> Anonymous
>>243728
Me neither actually. I still have both the f/4 non-is and the 2.8 IS. People who haven't used either one or pretend to be happy with their plastic 70-300's are the only ones who can say that shit.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I've had the F4 version for awhile now, and it's been useful and I'm glad I bought it over the 75-300 4.5-5.6 IS, but it's a little slow for anything that isn't outdoors. Found a good deal on the 70-200 F2.8 IS so I'll be getting that pretty soon here. yee haw

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:27 12:47:30Exposure Time1/4000 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height681RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>243790People who haven't used either one or pretend to be happy with their plastic 70-300's are the only ones who can say that shit.

you mean people like ac?
>> Anonymous
This is my dream lens, I want to get the 2.8 IS version... which is like $1500 I think.
>> Anonymous
>>244652

the f/4 IS is good enough for just about everyone
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243833
>you mean people like ac?
70-200 f/4L IS USM: Much faster autofocus, better build quality, better image quality, a bit under a full stop faster at the tele end; 200mm max, 760g, ~$1100
70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM: Slow, not as sharp, worse build quality, $530

So, it would've cost me twice as much. For that price, I would lose 100mm and add 100g to my bag (which already hurts my shoulder after a few hours). I would also get a bit under a stop more speed at 200mm, and (presumably noticeably) better sharpness and contrast and color reproduction. Frankly, the build quality isn't a big issue for me. I'm content with my crappy plastic-body lenses, and I was content with my crappy plastic-body camera.

So the biggest advantage I'd get is better image quality.

Now, think hard, as someone who absolutely *delights* in trolling me: Are you really willing to say that the only thing wrong with my pictures is that the image quality I get from my lens isn't enough? Are you going to go on record as saying that my skillz as a photographer are fantastic, but that I am being held back by my equipment?
>> Anonymous
One could get amazing shots from a shitty point and shoot so the whole "being held back by inferior equipment" should be bunk. The lens being quicker is a big help though.

The better build quality also assures that this lens will last you a long time and its widely known that these lens have extremely good sell back value.

The difference between the two seemingly is, one is better indoors, one is not. Also, I've heard that the L Cannon lens could get a teleconverter installed on it and would still be tack sharp (1.4x). So that would really help with reach.
>> Anonymous
people sure get defensive even when clearly trolled, maybe they are insecure
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244704
>so the whole "being held back by inferior equipment" should be bunk
Kinda my point

>The lens being quicker is a big help though.
Same speed at 70mm. f/4 vs f/5 at 200mm. Less than a full stop. f/5.6 won't let you shoot indoors in low light, but really, neither will f/4.

>Also, I've heard that the L Cannon lens could get a teleconverter installed on it and would still be tack sharp (1.4x). So that would really help with reach.
Having used a crappy cheap teleconverter on my crappy cheap lens, I can tell you that they're really cumbersome and annoying to use. Turns a quick lens swap into a multi-step lens juggle. And a 1.4x converter would make it into a 280mm f/5.6 at the long end. 20mm shorter isn't a big deal, but it gets to that length by completely erasing the aperture advantage of the L.
>> Anonymous
except the 70-200 sans tc cropped to 300mm still looks better than the 70-300 at 300mm

and f/4 with IS at 1600 works wonders