>> |
Blackadder
!!bSWRwu/NqzQ
File :-(, x)
I've got a friend with the 70-200 f/4 IS and I've got the 70-200 2.8 IS, so I've tried them both. Great lenses. Neither of us have complaints.
I'd second the comments about not worrying about the IQ of the 2.8. It's a non-issue really unless you've some unusual requirement. If you test them enough you'll find they both have points where they match or beat each other at, depending on the light and the distances involved. I found the 2.8 IS to suit me better due to the unreliable or poor lighting here in the UK. On overcast days or the winter it is nice to be able to get that extra stop.
If you're not very strong then remember that the 2.8 is double the weight, I've heard a few people complain about this, but you'll get used to it eventually even if you're thin or light framed. Most of the complaints are from people used to their near weightless plastic kit lens and then jumping straight to that kind of gear. I used big old chunky manual lenses and SLRs before this so I was more than prepared for it. The 70-200 2.6 is a fine companion to the 17-55 2.8.
Fisheyes tend to end up a toy you'll use for a month tops and then end up selling it or putting away and forgetting about it/regret buying it.
Up to you of course. You should listen to those reminding you that it is important to think of what you shoot or want to shoot with the lens. That should point the way as to what to get. Chances are though that a fisheye isn't going to be the answer.
Oh and any student that can shell out $1200, especially with everyone fretting about the economy, can't be doing too badly for themselves.
|