File :-(, x, )
chib !!RZtg9/1KP1J
Looking to pick up a telephoto zoom before I head off to Alaska and have decided on the EF 70-200mm f/4L
I'm trying to decide on if i should save for the IS version or not.
Has anyone here shot both? If so, is the IS significantly better?
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>181777
Get a used IS version. $900 or so. It's worth it.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>181777
hell yes, you need to get the IS version
f4 is too slow without IS
>> chib !!RZtg9/1KP1J
>>181779
>>181780
Thanks, I'll have to pick one up while im on leave then.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
Speaking of this same topic... I'm trying to decide on the f/4L IS, f/2.8L, or f/2.8L IS. I don't want to have to buy more filters if I go with the f/4L, and I'd like to have IS, but the 2.8L IS is too expensive. Not sure what to do...
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>181786
go for the F4 IS unless you do commercial fashion or sports photography.
a hobbyist who isn't rich shouldn't have to opt for the 2.8 or 2.8 IS IMO.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>181789
Thing is, the 2.8 and the 4 IS are about the same price, but I'd have to either lose the IS or go out and buy more filters. I suppose the IS is worth buying the filters...
>> Anonymous
save up for 2.8 IS

only faggots who can't afford it say f/4 is "enough"
>> Anonymous
>>181823
>lulz throw money at it, gear is more important that skill
>> Anonymous
lol skill magically wills more light into your lens!
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>181830
Uh... it actually does...
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>181790
what size are your filters? if they're bigger than the f/4 then just buy a step-down ring. They're like $10. If they're smaller than the f/4 then you're probably going to have to eventually get some ~77mm filters anyway.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>181834
The f/4 is 67mm and I have 77mm filters for my 24-105f/4L IS.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>181835
And I'm not sure if that 77mm filter would fit inside of the lens hood of the 70-200 f/4L IS.
>> Anonymous
>>181832

rofl yeah, i'll magically get twice the light in

awesome magic is awesome
>> Anonymous
>>181823
This isn't true. A 70-200 f/2.8 is not a good lens to schlep around or shoot with for a long time, and it's very large. When you need it, you need it, but if someone doesn't need the extra stop it never hurts to have smaller and lighter gear.

That said, I think people ITT are overestimating the value of IS. It's amazing and works great, but most things I can imagine someone shooting with a 70-200 are moving, i.e. even if you can handhold an f/4 IS lens with two or three stops slower shutter speed, getting in twice the light and having one stop of faster shutter speed to stop motion might be more useful.
>> Anonymous
>>181789go for the F4 IS unless you do commercial fashion

good thing i only do independent fashion

thanks for the pro tip lol!
>> Anonymous
OP:
If you don't want to go for the f/2.8 non-IS, go with the f/4 IS.
>>181786
Step up ring. Cost ya under 10 bucks. No, you won't be able to use a hood, but at least the ring and filter will provide better protection than nothing.
>> Anonymous
My goal is to collect all 4 version of the 70-200.

f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8, f/2.8 IS.

I'll have one version for every situation and I'm a bit of a collector to be honest.
>> Anonymous
>>181925
When are you going to use the non-IS versions?
>> Anonymous
>>181936

Hiking? Walking around? Anything where I will have it around my neck the whole time.
>> beechan
troll, gtfo
>>181954
>> Anonymous
I'm considering getting the 70-200 f/4L IS as well. My main reason for deciding to save for the f4 over the f2.8, apart from cost, was the size. The f/2.8 weighs twice as much, and is significantly bigger. Not a good lens to stick in the backpack for hiking etc.
>> chib !!RZtg9/1KP1J
>>181975
have you considered a backpack specifically for your camera?
http://products.lowepro.com/catalog/Backpacks,2.htm

there was a thread here last week or so about this company and their bags if you want to search for it
>> Sony !!wPqPEXsrYBc
     File :-(, x)
oh sup guize lol

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon DIGITAL IXUS 30Lens Size5.80 - 17.40 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 00.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:01:30 23:43:52Exposure Time1/5 secF-Numberf/2.8Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width562Image Height882RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeIndoorImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed0Image Number100-0036
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>181982

not much just chillaxing

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:31 13:22:58Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width550Image Height412
>> Anonymous
people who complain about the size of the 2.8 probaly never seen it in real life

the first time i saw one i was like, this is it? it was less than impressive in real life

learn to live with it
>> Anonymous
>>181978
Yeah its more the weight of the 2.8, that and the size is a lot bigger. I'm probably going to be handholding a lot too as opposed to using a tri/mono-pod.

I hadn't really considered a camera backpack. I don't really want to spend money on that anyway. My camera bag fits into the bottom half of my current backpack which leaves the top half for food, a jacket etc.
>> Anonymous
>>181987
Truth. It's definitely larger but not THAT much bigger. If you're shooting all day the weight might make a difference but man up and carry the 2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>181987
I've shot with it. The size is fine, but the weight is more than I like. It's usable, of course, but I like lenses I can be nimble with.
>> Anonymous
>>181987
yeah I was going to go to a shop and have a play with some of the different 70-200s
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>181777
>>181982
>>181984

Bitches ain't got nothin'.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>181993
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>181994

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSIGMACamera ModelSIGMA SD10Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)179 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2006:09:26 03:39:56Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias-3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length105.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height273RenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>181996

(Hell of a gaudy lens, though. Huge red dot on the front, FFS.)
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
>>181998
;_;
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>182002

sorry dudes, i win

"Yup, the camera functioned ok at this focal length and aperture (f/91 wide open). Shooting in direct mid-morning sunlight, the view finder is just a bit brighter compared to having the lens cap on. Manual focusing is a breeze, as easy as reading a newspaper in complete darkness. My attempts to control shake at this length (effectively about 0.12 degree or 7 minutes angle of view) merits a Medal of Valor in my opinion. I didn't try to tape the pins on the TCs and see if AF would work."

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:05:03 10:05:52Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height400RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
>>182004
get out

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:05:14 17:45:54Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1456Image Height2088
>> Anonymous
>>182004
>>182007

No, see,

>>181998

is a weird supertele from Leica, essentially their version of this>>181996Sigma lens. Instead of compromising optical quality across the whole range by building one huge zoom, they came up with an innovative solution, sort of similar to large format convertor lenses.

It's an 800/5.6, just like the Sigma at the long end, but it can be partially disassembled, removing "modules" (groups of elements stuck into a case) to get other focal lengths. The advantage is better performance and faster apertures; the disadvantage is speed in moving across and continuity of the range. (I don't know how much of a loss in working speed it is, because I don't know if they hook together with a bayonet or a screwmount.)

It's essentially a bastard cross of a zoom lens and a set of teleconvertors, resembling the former in purpose and the latter in design. The focal length/maximum aperture combinations available are 280/2.8, 400/2.8, 400/4 (presumably lighter), 560/4, 560/5.6 (same), and 800/5.6. It's better than the Sigma 300-800/5.6 in aperture and optical quality, not length, so the whole "THIS IS LONGER" thing completely missed the point of the challenge of>>181998to>>181996, and the (probably superior to them both) f/4 Zeiss lens here>>182002. (Although the Zeiss is designed for 6x6 and might even be shorter for that, I'm sure it can be adapted. Also, it's not a production lens: it was a multimillion dollar one-off commission from a U.A.E. aristocrat who likes photographing birds with a Hasselblad.) The challenge process there was on speed and image quality, not penis compensation factor.

Plus, I'm sure you could hook a shitton of teleconvertors up to the Leica or a Leica R body up to a telescope. Or teleconvertors to the Zeiss mentioned, or a 'Blad to a telescope.
>> Anonymous
>>182007

sorry mine is portable, i win
>> Anonymous
Well if it just for the alaska trip (and you can think of no other use for it) i would just rent it for however long you up there. If you just want it for outdoor shooting, the 70-200 f/4 non-IS is fine. You should have enough light in the day that the IS would be pointless anyway.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
You bitches ain't got nothing on my 57600mm lens. Now I just gotta figure out how to get my D40 attached to it.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>182090
$15 adapter. DUH!
>> Anonymous
>>182090
I heard your production quality control is shitty beyond all belief, though that customer service is very personal.
>> Anonymous
>>182096
Yeah, but that's because its pretty old. I'm thinking of upgrading to a higher megapixel digital sensor. And maybe an add-on flash.
>> Anonymous
>>182112
No, they sent the Hubble into space with some problem, I think some elements were out of alignment or something like that, and they had to send a crew to it to fix it.
>> Anonymous
>>182114
That's because it was the early 90s. Quality of living wasn't the same back then and people settled for shitty electronics and cars.
>> Anonymous
>>182090

In before hubble can't autofocus.
>> Anonymous
>>182559

OH SNAP

better get a used d50
>> Anonymous
>>182004
What the FUCK is that?!
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>182610
Well, exactly what it says. The Sigmonster is a 300-800 zoom, and then they stacked 2x teleconverters on it.
>> Anonymous
Isn't much of a difference in the f/4 and f/2.8, other than one stop in light transmission. So if you're shooting with the f/4, you just have to use twice as long shutter speeds, and, of course the "lesser" bokeh.
>> Anonymous
I have the 2.8 IS version. All of these are L lenses and are investments.

In any case, I'd rather go with the f4 IS version than the 2.8 nonIS. My hands are a bit shakey, and the IS really helps me a lot. Some people have hands of STONE. I don't know how they do it.

So it's really a personal preference. That being said, if you're outdoors with it, you should generally have plenty of light anyway, so shutterspeed won't be an issue. Get the 2.8 for bokeh if you have to choose.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
Another problem with the f/4L IS is that it doesn't come with a tripod ring...

Oh well, f/4L IS it is. Now to convince the wife that we should buy it *sigh*
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>182090

o hello.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:16 08:48:16Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width520Image Height420