| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2004 11:36:51 AM · #1 |
Here's some prices, if it's worth it, I'm willing to save up.
70-200 F4: $558
70-200 F2.8: $1119
70-200 F2.8 IS: $1628
I'm realizing that the $500 steps are paying for a large step in hand-holdability. Is it worth it? |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 11:41:48 AM · #2 |
| Get the 70-200 F2.8, you'll feel better! |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 11:41:57 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
I'm realizing that the $500 steps are paying for a large step in hand-holdability. Is it worth it? |
Dunno, it depends. What do you want to use it for?
Also, keep in mind that both of the the f2.8 lenses are bigger and heavier than the f4 lens.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 11:49:31 AM · #4 |
I would not give up my 70-200 2.8 L IS. that being said, you need to decide whether your intended uses will generate much need for f/2.8 vs. f/4, and just how painful the extra $$$ are. The 70-200/4 is at least as sharp as the already very good 2.8 versions. The IS will help with hand-holdability, but of course does nothing for subject motion, which can sometimes be just as much an issue.
In the end, it's a very personal decision that revolves around both your personal finances and your photographic interests. I personally love the flexibility the 70-200IS gives me, and don't mind the weight and size. The price was a consideration, but basically this is my ONLY lens longer than 100mm right now, and prolly will remain so for the near future.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 11:51:51 AM · #5 |
Get the IS version, well worth the extra $$...plus it keeps it's value...
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 11:51:56 AM · #6 |
| If you are willing to save up then go ahead and go for the 2.8 (IS I´m not sure). You could also take the 4.0 and use the extra 500 or 600 for another good lens or other accersory |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 12:48:00 PM · #7 |
First, what are your photographic goals? Those are some high-dollar lenses and you may be able to get the same quality of image with less expensive options. You may want to check out the Fixed vs Zoom lens thread and the Canon 50mm 1.8 and Canon 85mm 1.8 threads for some other interesting options.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 01:45:28 PM · #8 |
Any thoughts on if manufacturers other than Minolta will add anti-shake to their bodies? It seems like a very reasonable way to go, and could make IS lenses unnecessary (or worse).
Consumer video camera's have had similar technology for quite a while, so I imagine such things are quietly being developed by most camera manufacturers. Any rumors on the street? |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 01:54:45 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Any thoughts on if manufacturers other than Minolta will add anti-shake to their bodies? It seems like a very reasonable way to go, and could make IS lenses unnecessary (or worse).
|
The advantage of lens IS is that you can also see the effect in the viewfinder. Something that the Minolta system lacks. Only when all dSLR makers will switch to electronic viewfinders it would make sense to use sensor-moving anti-shake. IMO
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 02:00:31 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Here's some prices, if it's worth it, I'm willing to save up.
70-200 F4: $558
70-200 F2.8: $1119
70-200 F2.8 IS: $1628
I'm realizing that the $500 steps are paying for a large step in hand-holdability. Is it worth it? |
If you're looking for reach, you should also check out the 300 F4L (IS I think), little more than 70-200 2.8 (non-IS)
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 02:03:50 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Gauti:
...If you're looking for reach, you should also check out the 300 F4L (IS I think), little more than 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) |
The 300mm f/4L IS is less expensive by about $400, and is an exyremely sharp lesn even when used with the 1.4X teleconverter wide open.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 02:06:28 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Only when all dSLR makers will switch to electronic viewfinders it would make sense to use sensor-moving anti-shake. IMO |
Leaving aside what a terrible idea it would be to switch to EVF, do you actually NEED to see the effect of the image stabilising for it to be useful? After all, with digital you can see the results straight off anyway.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 02:09:17 PM · #13 |
I ordered my 50mm 1.8 II today. The guy even beat the best price on the net in Canada - //www.cameracanada.com .
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 02:42:31 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ganders:
do you actually NEED to see the effect of the image stabilising for it to be useful? After all, with digital you can see the results straight off anyway. |
Imagine that you have one chance to take a unique snap of the moment, would you like to find out on your tiny lcd that the IS didn't help enough? With the VR on my Nikkor you can also hear it when it is at the max, but lets leave that aside. :)
The chances of those occasions are very slim of course, but the stabilized image trough your optical viewfinder can help you to see things that you otherwise wouldn't see or wouldn't be able to pay attention to. That helps to push the shutter at the right moment and get the shot the way you wanted it to. I can't explain it good enough for my feeling, but hope you see what I mean.
And EVF's? They suck, optical forever. :)
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 04:51:20 PM · #15 |
Much gratitude to those of you that posted something relevant.
Is it worth $1100 more to be able to hand hold the lens? It sure would be handy, but I don't know if its something that I'd be glad to have spent that much money on.
What of image quality and focus accuracy? I had some trouble focusing the 2.8 IS in low light, as if it were racing past the focus without noticing.
Any other thoughts?
Edit: Forgot to mention, I rented the 2.8 IS a couple week-ends ago, I do know that I love it.
Message edited by author 2004-12-15 16:52:41. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 07:22:37 PM EDT.
