Canon Lenses
Nov 2, 2013 13:51:56 #
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 2, 2013 13:52:52 #
Nov 2, 2013 13:56:44 #
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?
When will you use the lens: daylight or near dark?
Nov 2, 2013 13:59:38 #
I do weddings and portrait photography mostly. I realize the 2.8 will help with lower light situations, but I have a 100mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 for that. I also have a 24-105mm 4.0 that I use most of the time. I use the 100mm for portraits on a Canon 7D.
St3v3M wrote:
When will you use the lens: daylight or near dark?
Nov 2, 2013 14:01:55 #
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?
$1000 for 1 stop. You have to ask yourself how often will it be needed.
Considering high ISO capability of most Canon cameras I would get the f4 version.
Nov 2, 2013 14:02:12 #
Of course if money is no object the 2.8 would be the way to go. For $1,000+ Do I really need it? I do weddings and portrait photography mostly. I realize the 2.8 will help with lower light situations, but I have a 100mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 for that. I also have a 24-105mm 4.0 that I use most of the time. I use the 100mm for portraits on a Canon 7D.
jmaves1044 wrote:
Yes.
Nov 2, 2013 14:02:21 #
St3v3M wrote:
When will you use the lens: daylight or near dark?
Yup. Depends on your subject matter and the lighting conditions you will most often be shooting in.
Might IQ be a bit better with the 2.8? Yeah, possibly.
But again, depends on what you are shooting and under what conditions.
Nov 2, 2013 14:03:54 #
I do weddings and portrait photography mostly. I realize the 2.8 will help with lower light situations, but I have a 100mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 for that. I also have a 24-105mm 4.0 that I use most of the time. I use the 100mm for portraits on a Canon 7D.
Swamp Gator wrote:
Yup. Depends on your subject matter and the lighting conditions you will most often be shooting in.
Might IQ be a bit better with the 2.8? Yeah, possibly.
But again, depends on what you are shooting and under what conditions.
Might IQ be a bit better with the 2.8? Yeah, possibly.
But again, depends on what you are shooting and under what conditions.
Nov 2, 2013 14:08:55 #
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?
Nov 2, 2013 14:15:33 #
I don't do it for a living. I'm retired. So I don't depend on the income. So my earnings go towards new equipment. I choose the 7d about a year ago as an upgrade from the 60D because of it's capabilities with it's focusing system and strong build quality.
Sure you can always get better and full frame would be nice. Right now I thought of getting the 4.0 and a back up body instead of the 2.8 and no backup body. Maybe I can find a decent used FF within my budget.
Sure you can always get better and full frame would be nice. Right now I thought of getting the 4.0 and a back up body instead of the 2.8 and no backup body. Maybe I can find a decent used FF within my budget.
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?
Nov 2, 2013 14:19:04 #
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?
I have the 2.8, and serves me well. Many here on the hog will tell you you probably don't need to spend the difference for the stop of light, but if you can afford it, you will never regret it or look back. IMHO
Nov 2, 2013 15:49:24 #
gemlenz wrote:
I also have a 24-105mm 4.0 that I use most of the time.
Gem, you are already using an f4 as your primary lens. I take it you use it with a good flash. With a good flash, the 2.8 zoom will only help with a slight bit of OOF.
The only 70-200 sharper than the f4 is the 2.8mkll
If you don't need the 2.8, get the F4 and use the rest to get a used or refurb 5dmll, and use the 7 for a backup.
The FF with an f4 will probably give you more OOF/bokeh than the crop with a 2.8.
Good luck with a tough call.
SS
Nov 2, 2013 15:53:11 #
Yes
You can use the 2x coupler with the 2.8 and have yourself a 400mm in a split second. The coupler doesn't work with the 4.6 lense (No metering)
As well the optics are subtly clearer. I have had both.
Your decision on image stabilization will be more important
You can use the 2x coupler with the 2.8 and have yourself a 400mm in a split second. The coupler doesn't work with the 4.6 lense (No metering)
As well the optics are subtly clearer. I have had both.
Your decision on image stabilization will be more important
Nov 2, 2013 15:54:10 #
oh yes IS is a must..
gordnanaimo wrote:
Yes
You can use the 2x coupler with the 2.8 and have yourself a 400mm in a split second. The coupler doesn't work with the 4.6 lense (No metering)
As well the optics are subtly clearer. I have had both.
Your decision on image stabilization will be more important
You can use the 2x coupler with the 2.8 and have yourself a 400mm in a split second. The coupler doesn't work with the 4.6 lense (No metering)
As well the optics are subtly clearer. I have had both.
Your decision on image stabilization will be more important
Nov 2, 2013 15:54:19 #
Thx... I tend to agree.. I'll get the lens first..
SharpShooter wrote:
Gem, you are already using an f4 as your primary lens. I take it you use it with a good flash. With a good flash, the 2.8 zoom will only help with a slight bit of OOF.
The only 70-200 sharper than the f4 is the 2.8mkll
If you don't need the 2.8, get the F4 and use the rest to get a used or refurb 5dmll, and use the 7 for a backup.
The FF with an f4 will probably give you more OOF/bokeh than the crop with a 2.8.
Good luck with a tough call.
SS
The only 70-200 sharper than the f4 is the 2.8mkll
If you don't need the 2.8, get the F4 and use the rest to get a used or refurb 5dmll, and use the 7 for a backup.
The FF with an f4 will probably give you more OOF/bokeh than the crop with a 2.8.
Good luck with a tough call.
SS
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.