Should I be bummed . . .
- This topic has 28 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated Jan 30, 2010 at 1:26 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
because I bought a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS about six months ago?
http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20100105_ef70-20028lis.html
Doesn’t look like a vast improvement over the old. From dpreview:
“Although outwardly similar to its predecessor, the new lens features a revised optical design, incorporating a fluorite element and no fewer than 5 UD elements for the correction of chromatic aberrations. The minimum focus distance has been reduced to 1.2m, with a corresponding increase in maximum magnification to 0.21x. The mechanical design has also been modified, with the most obvious external change being a wider focusing ring.”
No big whoop.
If you were pleased with your current 70-200mm the day before this new lens was announced, I fail to see how that should have changed.
While we may have this THING for the latest and greatest, your current lens is a very good one that many would love to have.
ehh… It doesn’t even hit stores until April. I’ve used the current version and loved it, you’ll be happy with the one you’ve got.
Now if only they’d come out with a 2.8 version of the 100-400 w/IS and price it under $2k…
http://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.
http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox InstagramI wouldn’t be bummed, you have one of Canon’s best zoom lens around hand down. It’s more of a marketing ploy from Canon to sell a newer lenses. The first thing that’ll start happening is people will start selling a perfectly good lens in oder to get an unproven newer version of the current 70-200L 2.8 IS. I love my 70-200 it’s a heavy beast but worth every penny. There is no reason I’d be getting rid of mine anytime soon.
I’ve had 3 versions of the 70-200 2.8 and they’re not a bad lens, just not very sharp on the high rez cameras compared to the f4 version or any of the prime L lenses in the same range.
They’re good for action because of focusing speed, but not sharp enough for anything serious.
The new version, if it has the new coatings should be a big improvement and I look forward to trying one.
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
They’re good for action because of focusing speed, but not sharp enough for anything serious.
I would be interested in knowing your basis for this. I have never read anything other than the current model is one of Canon’s best, particularly for a zoom.
I’ve had 3 versions of the 70-200 2.8 and they’re not a bad lens, just not very sharp on the high rez cameras compared to the f4 version or any of the prime L lenses in the same range.
David,
I am not doubting your expertise or your knowledge, but could you please explain how the f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8? One of these is my next piece of glass, and I have come to value your input re. glass purchases, and many other aspects of photography.Thanks DA!
D.I’ve had 3 versions of the 70-200 2.8 and they’re not a bad lens, just not very sharp on the high rez cameras compared to the f4 version or any of the prime L lenses in the same range.
They’re good for action because of focusing speed, but not sharp enough for anything serious.
The new version, if it has the new coatings should be a big improvement and I look forward to trying one.
Ive been bouncing back and forth on these two (in the non IS model) and keep hearing the same comments on the IQ of the f/4 over the 2.8.
The f4 versions of the 70-200 are widely regarded as two of Canons sharpest zoom lenses and both sharper than the f2.8s. Many feel and Ive seen enough images to back it up that the 70-200s while fantastic lenses are a bit soft wide open ( A common problem with almost all lenses). So its not that they are bad (they arent) they just arent tack sharp opened up.
Take a pic at F4 to f8 with any of them and I doubt many people would see any difference.
but I also hear that shooting speeds faster than 1/250 are not going to be good with the f/4 due to the smaller aperture.
Absolute hogwash.
If you mean that acheiving 1/250th (or higher) is tough at f4 I wouldnt say so, you need to be in pretty dim low light not to get 1/250th at f4 and iso 800. Just for illustrative purposes.
As you can see its snowing hard, that shot is at iso 800 and f6.3 1/500th.is it possible to get solid shots of say jumping fish with the f/4. Virtually all of my shooting would be in daylight hours
That is more a function of your body, and while you need a lens thats capable of fast focusing as well, at the end of the day its more about your body than lens. The better your body, the more likely to outcome. Which is to say a 70-200 F4 L used to try and get fish in the air depends on whether its on say an XTI or 1D, not the lens.
Thanks John,
I’ve been reading the canon digital photography forum to liberally. their consensus seems to be that the f/4 is a dog for sports, which i would assume a jumping fish shot to be.I really was just looking for re-assurance since the f/4 non IS is the only one that is really in my budget.
out of curiosity, have you tried this lens with a 1.4 teleconverter?
Not with TCs no.
Friends of mine have and they dont mind it.If you want to shoot sports, especially sports that dont get alot of light, then yeah the f2.8 would be my choice but imo, thats the only real upside over the F4 versions.
70-200 F4 L IS
ISO 400 at f4.5 1/125th
If anyone eversuggested thats not tack sharp id ask what they are smoking
good lookin moose,
thanks for the advice. For my use it would not justify spending twice as much. You just helped me make my decision. Now I just need more days off to fishLol when I answer that question for myself I’ll let you know. I have 2 more lens purchases I want to make that I know of today. One of those being one of the 4 70-200s. I am a big fan of fast glass, however I also beleive in spend where you have to and save where you can.
70-200 just isn’t a focal range I find myself wanting to be in very much. I tend to want to shoot 20-80 or 300+. I have fast glass in the 24-70 f2.8, the 85mm, the 180 f3.5 macro and the 500 f4. So wanting desiring to spend that much more for a f2.8 70-200 makes little sense.
So Im 98% sure I’ll be getting one of the F4 versions when its time to add the range.IS vs non IS.
Spend where you have to/Save where you can.Even with my long lenses both the 400 and 500 I dont as a general rule rely or feel the need for IS. Every now and then when opening up, or bumping ISO isnt possible yeah, its nice to have but my hand holding technique is solid and so I may not *value* IS as much as the next guy.
Im getting the 1DMKIV next week. An acquaintence in Australia picked one up 2 weeks ago and the images Im seeing at high ISOs are phenominal for a sensor that size ( not FF). Even upto ISO 12,000 they are usuable and below 6000 very clean.
Further reducing *my* need for IS.
Keep in mind alot of what I like to shoot is action oriented..Be it wildlife, or anglers….IS does jack squat for that.
So all that said I’m currently leaning towards the non IS and save myself $700.00. If Im in a situation and I need fast glass I have 3 other options..all of which I use more than 70-200 to begin with or if I need to avoid shake due to low SS and dim light I can bump ISO or use my pod if I dont feel I can get away with handholding. So paying the IS premium and almost doubling the cost of the exact same lens……..
I retain the right to change my leanings once I start seriously considering adding a 70-200. I have another pricey lens Id like to add before the spring/summer seasons arrive and will look at that gap next year.
J
I will say, IS is nice for handholding in low light situations. I’ve used the 70-200 2.8 IS when shooting music performances and it definitely came in handy.
I rarely use the IS on my 24-105 f4. In fact I had to just check the lens to see if that option was on there. It’s been a while since I’ve shot a concert, so that explains why I couldn’t remember…http://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.
http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox InstagramThanks John. That helps a lot.
I find myself not sure how much time I’ll be spending in the 70-200 range as well. What I really wish is that they made a 70-300L to replace my 70-300 f4-5.6. Since they don’t, I find myself stuck with probably needing to buy two lenses – the 70-200L and the 100-400L. I could possibly do with just the 100-400, but that would leave me with a gap between 50-100mm range. I’m not sure how much that would be an adverse effect for me.
I do identify with you when you say you like to shoot mostly wide or at 500mm. But I could see some uses for the 70-200 on stream in order to shoot from a little further away, and also for indoor stuff where a little more reach is needed. Of course for indoors, the 2.8 would be better.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.