Canon Lenses
Nov 3, 2013 16:20:56 #
gemlenz wrote:
Why would the 2.8 be sharper than the 4.0?
The 2.8 is only slightly sharper at F4 than the F4 is ( Imatest results). Doubt you can SEE any difference at that aperture or any other ! IMHO, the reasons for getting the 2.8 are: To impress someone, to be able to make out of focus areas slightly less discernable, to give a higher shutter speed in lower light or at lower ISO's at the expense of DOF, or to be able to put a 2X behind it for 400mm F5.6.
Nov 3, 2013 18:32:28 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
In a wedding scenario outdoors, the f/4 is adequate. Low light / indoors requires the 2.8. You can't count on flash for help in many churches. Suggest checking Sigma and new Tamron versions as well.
If you decide to go Canon, the mark ll is rated superior to the mark l, but you may be able to find a new or gently used mark l to save a few bucks and give up the latest technology. Good hunting.
If you decide to go Canon, the mark ll is rated superior to the mark l, but you may be able to find a new or gently used mark l to save a few bucks and give up the latest technology. Good hunting.
Nov 3, 2013 18:59:21 #
imagemeister wrote:
The 2.8 is only slightly sharper at F4 than the F4 is ( Imatest results). Doubt you can SEE any difference at that aperture or any other ! IMHO, the reasons for getting the 2.8 are: To impress someone, to be able to make out of focus areas slightly less discernable, to give a higher shutter speed in lower light or at lower ISO's at the expense of DOF, or to be able to put a 2X behind it for 400mm F5.6.
And, the 2.8 version I speak of here is the II !
Nov 3, 2013 21:44:56 #
dan r wilson
Loc: Marquette,MI da UP eh, Gods country
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 had the same decision, I shoot 7D also I picked up the F/4 saved $1200 used that savings to purchase the 100 to 400 L. I can shoot everything with the F4 with excellent results! Nite football, hockey, wildlife ect. I freelance for a local newspaper the F4 70 to 200 is the lens I leave on my camera for all a round shooting. Save the grand, to something else with it.
Nov 3, 2013 21:50:04 #
gemlenz wrote:
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.
If your income goes for new equipment, why not the 70-200mm F2.8 IS? I have had mine for several years. It has been a great performer. I even dropped it about four feet onto a hard floor once - no damage. Increase your business a bit, and mate it with a 1DX.
Nov 3, 2013 21:52:11 #
dan r wilson
Loc: Marquette,MI da UP eh, Gods country
I purchased everything used excellent condition from adorama. Happy with everything
Nov 3, 2013 22:02:04 #
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?
Yes
Nov 3, 2013 22:11:01 #
There is something magical that happens with that lens between 150-180 mm at 2.8. It's going to be my next lens.
Count on an additional sale to happen between now & Christmas if you can wait it out. It should be 1999.99 or less.
Count on an additional sale to happen between now & Christmas if you can wait it out. It should be 1999.99 or less.
Nov 4, 2013 00:01:45 #
I tried out the 70-300 L lens and was so satisfied that I kept that lens and sold my 100-400, 70-200 F4 and 300 F4 and am very happy. My first test was with my 1D MK IV, fast focus, shot at near max on some red crowned wild parrots in Los Angeles and was able to do sharp prints of 16x20 with a 50% crop. I did not push it beyond that, but it equalled or exceeded the other three lenses. Each of us had our desires and needs. The OOF areas are not as OOF as with a 2.8, but I will accept that trade off. My Canon system weighs over 40# and with the size and airline issues currently, that is more than enough.
Nov 4, 2013 00:26:51 #
Poke wrote:
Gem, br br I was just pondering the same thing.... (show quote)
Poke,
I have to agree with you about the weight difference, the f4 is much lighter. You are worried about weight but bought the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 lens? It has got to be as heavy if not heavier that the Canon 70-200mm f2.8, I know, I own it. You are right though, it is one great lens but not inexpensive!
Your next lens, look at the Sigma 500mm, also a great lens!
Jim D
Nov 4, 2013 05:22:10 #
I don't have a Canon. Members of my camera club use them. They say always buy L series glass.
Glass is the most important item. Basically the camera is just a box (in the older days)
What I'm saying is the more expensive the camera, you will have a better
sensor and more features.
When I purchased my Nikon D800 (full frame), I bought a used Nikon 35-70mm F/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8. I buy most of my equipment
from Adarama. If you buy the E category (its like brand new)
These lens are the equal to Canon L series. (pro)
Hope this helps
Glass is the most important item. Basically the camera is just a box (in the older days)
What I'm saying is the more expensive the camera, you will have a better
sensor and more features.
When I purchased my Nikon D800 (full frame), I bought a used Nikon 35-70mm F/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8. I buy most of my equipment
from Adarama. If you buy the E category (its like brand new)
These lens are the equal to Canon L series. (pro)
Hope this helps
Nov 4, 2013 05:32:14 #
most of my shooting is between f 4.5-8.0,i stop down most of the time.
Nov 4, 2013 06:12:42 #
the f/2.8 weighs about twice as much....so, unless you're using a tripod and/or have to shoot in low light a lot I'd go with the f/4 which is a great lens
Nov 4, 2013 09:28:09 #
bull drink water wrote:
most of my shooting is between f 4.5-8.0,i stop down most of the time.
So do I, unless the lighting is really bad. In fact I try to shoot between f5.6 - f10. My point is it is nice to be able to go to f2.8 if necessary.
Jim D
Nov 4, 2013 09:40:38 #
floridamet wrote:
I don't have a Canon. Members of my camera club ... (show quote)
Sense I do not have any Nikon equipment I can only go with what I hear. It is my understanding that Nikon glass is pretty much on an even par with Canon "L" series glass. Lately, the last two years, Sigma pro series glass has been on par with both of them for most cases. Prior to that it was not always the case, you had to take your chances. I wasn't sure, often what you read has no merit to it. Now that I have bought the Sigma 500mm and the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 lenses I believe those reviews! Both are very nice pieces of glass!
Jim D
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.