Canon Lenses
Nov 3, 2013 06:09:09 #
I own the 2.8 and never looked back. I also use it for wildlife and attach a 2X which will autofocus, making it a 140-400 f5.6. Gary
gemlenz wrote:
I'm trying to decide to buy a 70-200 is usm 4.0 or a 70-200 is usm 2.8. There's about $1,000 in price difference between the 2. Is the 2.8 worth the difference?
Nov 3, 2013 06:52:57 #
I bought the f4 for two reasons: half the weight of the 2.8 and almost half the price. IQ is excellent on the f4, and have never missed the extra stop.
Nov 3, 2013 07:33:17 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
I am confused in weddings and portraits one can get get close to the subjects. Why would you need a 200mm lens?
Nov 3, 2013 07:34:27 #
Just bought it but got a cash back which softened the blow. You get a lot with this lens (less glass for a start) and the aperature is constant. Faster shutter speeds are one big plus and this is a great lens for moving around to take people shots with lots of depth of field. Painful but very pleased I got it after much deliberation!
Nov 3, 2013 07:40:36 #
sueyeisert
Loc: New Jersey
Swamp Gator wrote:
Heh, I wrote the above I guess while you were answering the question.
If you shoot weddings and portraits professionally for a living I would go for the 2.8. You will never regret getting the best if your livelihood depends on it.
But I do have a question regarding your camera choice. I love my 7Ds every day for wildlife action but if I shot weddings and portraits I would have definitely gone for a FF Canon. What led you to choose a 7D?
If you shoot weddings and portraits professionally for a living I would go for the 2.8. You will never regret getting the best if your livelihood depends on it.
But I do have a question regarding your camera choice. I love my 7Ds every day for wildlife action but if I shot weddings and portraits I would have definitely gone for a FF Canon. What led you to choose a 7D?
:thumbup:
Nov 3, 2013 08:23:59 #
Nov 3, 2013 08:49:34 #
gemlenz wrote:
I'm trying to decide to buy a 70-200 is usm 4.0 or a 70-200 is usm 2.8. There's about $1,000 in price difference between the 2. Is the 2.8 worth the difference?
It is, if you have that extra $1000. If not, then no it isn't!
:-D
Nov 3, 2013 08:52:02 #
Woodham Lock wrote:
You get a lot with this lens (less glass for a start) and the aperature is constant.
I saw something like this in a tutorial video, but it didn't register until later... How does this work - the constant aperture I mean?
Surely, this means that you are limited to a single choice of shutter speed? How else can you control the exposure?
Nov 3, 2013 08:53:11 #
balticvid
Loc: Queens now NJ
gemlenz wrote:
I'm trying to decide to buy a 70-200 is usm 4.0 or a 70-200 is usm 2.8. There's about $1,000 in price difference between the 2. Is the 2.8 worth the difference?
Yes!!! You'll never be sorry. You will never have to say,
"I wish I had......"
Nov 3, 2013 09:00:43 #
ole sarg wrote:
I am confused in weddings and portraits one can get get close to the subjects. Why would you need a 200mm lens?
Many reasons. One is the the ability to not be as close to the subject allowing for a more relaxed shot. With short lenses some people do not relax due to you being in their perceived personal space. The OOF background is improved by focal length. It is perceived and proven the ideal portrait lens is approximately 135 mm or close to this range. There are many other reasons, try googling for more info.
Nov 3, 2013 09:07:19 #
Like you I only shoot weddings on the side as I am retired & my hat goes off to regular wedding photographers. It is real work! But I've wanted a 70-200, 2.8 because you don't want to use a flash for live weddings. You want to catch those shots when no one is looking & the expressions on the guest as well. I still use a 60D but I don't charge to shoot weddings & tell folks that I am not a Pro. But practice makes perfect. Good Luck Arizona. B-)
Nov 3, 2013 09:39:14 #
I looked at the specs on Adorama. The F4 weighs about 1 pound vs. 2.9 lbs. for the F2.8. The 2.8 advantage for nature shooting in low light & sharpness might be justified in nature shooting, but if the F4 is a little softer it may well soften skin blemishes, etc & be less likely to intimidate the subjects.
Nov 3, 2013 09:51:31 #
Sometimes you can't always get as close as you want without being a distraction, especially during the ceremony. The 200mm helps with that. Now I use my 24-105 and wish I could get closer.
ole sarg wrote:
I am confused in weddings and portraits one can get get close to the subjects. Why would you need a 200mm lens?
Nov 3, 2013 10:06:25 #
I am considering the same purchase and from all the info I can gather, there is no comparison in the sharpness of the two lenses. The 2.8 is much, much sharper.
Nov 3, 2013 10:20:02 #
gemlenz wrote:
I'm trying to decide to buy a 70-200 is usm 4.0 or a 70-200 is usm 2.8. There's about $1,000 in price difference between the 2. Is the 2.8 worth the difference?
8-) 8-) 8-) Here are a few differences that will live with you and your new lens throughout out your careers together, ounces, as in weight. The 2.8L is one sweet lens, so is the 4.0L. The 2.8L weighs twice what the 4,0L weighs, 26.8 ounces for the 4.0L vs 52.6 for the 2.8L. I own and shoot both. The 4.0L goes with me on foot. The 2.8L usually works from a monopod or tripod. Of course the obvious answer is for you to rent both and see for yourself. Get both at the same time, the difference will be more easily noted. Whichever you buy you (hopefully) will enjoy in all phases of your photography using it. GL :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.