Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Which lens

  1. #1
    Member tboehm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna AK
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Which lens

    This stuff is breaking the bank but she never complains about all my hunting stuff

    Which lens, She is already complaining that she needs a zoom so I guess that will be mothersday. Anyway the 70-200mm IS comes in the F2.8 and the F4. The 2.8 costs TWICE as much. What would be the purpose of the 2.8 and is it worth spending the money on something like that. Please tell me why.

    Thanks for the help.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    the larger aperature of the 2.8 will allow more light to get into the sensor - Thus being able to shoot at lower ISO with higher speed.

    This will result in better image quality by far.

    If you've got the money, get the f2.8.

  3. #3

    Default F 2.8

    The F2.8 will allow the camera to be used in lower light situations which would require a flash on the F4 lens, this also helps reduce battery drain.
    If its within your financial means slpurge and get the F2.8, you'll not regret it.
    " Americans will never need the 2nd Amendment, until the government tries to take it away."

    On the road of life..... Pot holes keep things interesting !

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    The downside to the f/2.8 version is not only price, but weight as well. It's nearly twice as much to pack around. Optically, all four of Canon's 70-200 lenses are superb. Image quality should not be used a deciding factor. It's too close to call.

    However, you can get both the f/4 and f/2.8 version with or without Image Stabilization (IS). Personally, I would opt for the f/4 IS version over the f/2.8 without IS. IS makes up for about 3 stops of hand holding stability, and f/2.8 is only 1 stop faster than f/4. IS does not stop subject motion however, so it's certainly not all one sided, but most of the time I'm more worried about motion from camera shake when using long lenses, and IS fixes that.

    As another option, I would suggest you also consider Canon's superb 70-300 IS lens. This lens weighs 1/4 pound less than the 70-200 f/4L IS, is one inch shorter, and costs about half as much ($550 versus $1050 for the f/4 IS). Image quality is very nearly as good from 70 to 200mm, and it degrades only slightly at 300mm. The IS system is just as good on either of them. What the 70-200 f/4L IS gains is superior build quality and weather proofing, faster focus, and about 1/2 of a stop of light at 200mm (f/4 versus f/5).

    I personally went for the 70-300 due to the lower cost and weight, and longer focal length, but they are all good, and you can't go wrong with any of them.

  5. #5
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default Good points...

    Jim makes some good points (as always)

    I have a Canon 24-105 f/4 IS that I love. I can't imagine a sharper lens. I also worry about anyone that tells you that you must have a f/2.8. I don't buy it. While I do agree there are benefits, especially in low light, I don't buy all the hype that they are that much better. Especially when the price is factored in. If I were a professional photographer making a living on my photography, perhaps I would feel differently. But I am super impressed with my 24-105 f/4. I can suggest the Canon 10-22 as well. Incredible lens and it allows you to capture some amazing shot that are just not possible without an ultrawide. I also have a Canon 100-400 IS and it is a superb lens for the money. Great for wildlife. Would I like to have a Canon 400 f/2.8? You bet. Would I spend $4000+ on a lens. Heck no. So if you find a balance between performance and value, you will quickly see that the f/4 range offers great performance and value compared to the f/2.8 in any lens. And as Jim mentions, they are a lot heavier, bulkier, and certainly more expensive while yielding only slight benefits (depending on who you ask of course). The Canon 70-300 IS has a good reputation. Canon just released a new lens, a 55-250. It is about $300. The 70-300 Jim mentions is about $500. Either of those lenses offers big bang for the buck if you ask me. Got a little more to spend, the 100-400 is about $1500. Just plain rich? The primes in 400 and 500 mm are available in f/4 or f/2.8 and cost about $4-6k. Canon has a full line up. Something for everyone you might say. Below is a link to the new Canon lens on B&H. They are a great place to buy from. The only place I buy from in fact. There are many ways to skin a cat. Stay in your budget (no matter what anyone else tells you to buy) and get out there and take some pictures. All these lenses will allow you to get out and have fun. And get a great tripod!

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._4_5_6_IS.html
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  6. #6
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Get the 2.8 non IS
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  7. #7
    Member Sierra Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    637

    Default

    A LOT depends on what you're using the lens for. If you're shooting sports, especially indoors sports like basketball, you just can't make up the extra light that the 2.8 will give you. Anything else and the f/4 will work great. While I walk on the other side of the street (Nikon), I have a 300mm f/4 that I love - I'm not going to be shooting sports with it - but that's OK - I'll save up for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR (Nikon's verson of IS).

    Cheers,
    SH

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    I could be wrong of course, but a lens with f/2.8 should do well with a Kenko Pro 300 DG teleconverter, or at least better than the same lens with a f/4 aperture. I just purchased (abut a week ago) an EF 200mm f/2.8L (no IS) and have been amazed at how sharp this lens is. It's also small, and light enough for using without a tripod most times. Not a bad price for a L lens (around $650.00 at B&H). I will be using it without a TC most times, and with a Kenko Pro 300 to reach farther. The only problem with primes is that you either walk closer to the subject, or back away from it to take the picture.

  9. #9
    Member Sierra Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    637

    Default

    Matching a TC with a lens is a trial and error proposition. Some combinations just seem to work really well, and some don't. I use a Tamron 1.4x with my 300mm f/4 and it seems to work as well as the lens lets it. I wouldn't use a 1.7x or 2.0x with this lens though because of the light penalty. With an f/2.8 lens I think the combo would work better. You just have to try the combination that you're going to have and see what works and what doesn't.

    Nikon-branded TC's don't autofocus with lenses below f/4, so there's that to think about too . . .

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    " Nikon-branded TC's don't autofocus with lenses below f/4, so there's that to think about too . . ."

    Same with Canon unless you have a 1 series camera, or a EOS 3. A 1.4x TC adds a one stop aperture penalty, and a 2x TC adds a two stop penalty. Most Canon cameras stop AF at less than (higher number than) f/5.6, but the higher end cameras can go to f/8 with some limitations.

    If you use a non Canon brand TC (at least most of them) the camera won't know about the aperture loss and will attempt AF. Some bodies will work half decent to f/8, and some fail most of the time. It's pretty hit or miss. The original Digital Rebel worked great at f/8, but the newer ones, and 20D/30D don't.

    BTW, the issue isn't light loss, but the way phase detection AF works requires an aperture of a certain minimum value to function. I'm curious about how the Nikon D300's live view AF system (contrast detection type) might work with smaller apertures. Anyone tried it?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Lots of information relating to TC's in this forum:
    http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=41922

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •