| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2006 03:00:34 PM · #26 |
It's my favourite lens. I bought the 70-200 f/4 first but the 2.8 IS lens is a LOT better!
I took this photo last week with it:
And this one before:
Message edited by author 2006-02-19 15:26:37. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:17:19 PM · #27 |
| I posted before that I don't know much about lenses, and I noticed that this lens is an f2.8. Dumb question: Is that constant? So I can't bump the aperature for different effects (say up to 16 for a long DOF) |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:39:26 PM · #28 |
Not constant.
Will range (on my camera) from 2.8-22
What makes it so cool is that it is 2.8 at any zoom length, as opposed to more inexpensive lens that have a varying widest aperture depending on zoom length
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:57:44 PM · #29 |
| I just purchased one myself. I put it on my Canon 20D last week and I have not taken it off for another lens yet! It is pricey but lives up to expectations. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:01:25 PM · #30 |
| I can't afford to read this thread :( |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:38:32 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by wee_ag:
I posted before that I don't know much about lenses, and I noticed that this lens is an f2.8. Dumb question: Is that constant? So I can't bump the aperature for different effects (say up to 16 for a long DOF) |
The maximum aperure is f/2.8, across the whole zoom range; the minimum aperture is f/22, also constant.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 12:45:31 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by wee_ag:
I posted before that I don't know much about lenses, and I noticed that this lens is an f2.8. Dumb question: Is that constant? So I can't bump the aperature for different effects (say up to 16 for a long DOF) |
The maximum aperure is f/2.8, across the whole zoom range; the minimum aperture is f/22, also constant. |
Oooooooo, that makes it that much more appealing! Thanks!!! |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 03:18:03 AM · #33 |
But remember that the rating is also price vs. value. The slightly lower rating of IS vs. non-IS doesn't mean that IS makes the lens worse... but it may be unreasonably more expensive to some. To me, it was worth every penny.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by paddyfrenchman:
How would you guys rate it compare to the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 ? |
sigma rated 9.1 on a scale of 10
canon 70-200 2.8 rates 9.8
canon 70-200 2.8 IS rates 9.6/10
IS has it's advantages, but it will provide slightly less image quality, but only very slightly less.
get the sigma and the canon IS versions, and you are covered for every situattion for slightly less cash than getting both canon lenses.
BTW, the 70-200 f4 canon rates 9.4 |
|
|
|
|
02/27/2006 01:55:18 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Are_62:
BTW, the 70-200 f4 canon rates 9.4 |
Ok, I'm back to again show my ignorance of lenses...
So what's the big deal with a f2.8 vs. f4? I know you can get a shorter DOF with a 2.8 vs. 4, and you can get a bit faster shutter speed, but is it really worth $550? What am I missing?
Thanks again!!
Message edited by author 2006-02-27 13:58:17. |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 02:01:50 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by wee_ag:
Originally posted by Are_62:
BTW, the 70-200 f4 canon rates 9.4 |
Ok, I'm back to again show my ignorance of lenses...
So what's the big deal with a f2.8 vs. f4? I know you can get a shorter DOF with a 2.8 vs. 4, and you can get a bit faster shutter speed, but is it really worth $550?
Thanks again!! |
Remember that f/2.8 means *twice* as much light hitting the sensor, so shutter speed will be half of what it would be at f/4. Only you can judge whether you really need the extra stop for the kind of shooting you do. FWIW, even f/2.8 is marginal for indoor sports in most venues, and f/4 is all but useless in many venues.
Another benefit of the f/2.8 lenses is that most Canon bodies focus more precisely with a faster lens; they use a higher-precision AF sensor when a fast lens is used.
In the end, the additional cost was worth it for me.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2006 02:04:38 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by wee_ag:
So what's the big deal with a f2.8 vs. f4? I know you can get a shorter DOF with a 2.8 vs. 4, and you can get a bit faster shutter speed, but is it really worth $550? What am I missing?
Thanks again!! |
It can be worth the extra money depending on what you shoot. If you are shooting indoor, low light or sports, you would want the F2.8 version, so its worth.
if you shoot outdoors, you may not need the 2.8 version, it all depends on the use. |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 02:27:46 PM · #37 |
interesting thread
So.. if the 2.8 is worth the money comparing to the 4
Is the IS version worth the money too?
and is 200 long enough?
I have the 70-300 DO which I like 'cause I do mainly traveling and it's great to have a "small" lens..it bothers me that it's a bit soft though, specially for the price.. so I was thinking of swapping it for a 70-200 but I'm loosing the 200-300.. it's a tough decision to make..
I like to shoot candid people and animals mainly...
any thoughts?
J |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 02:32:24 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by jsolsona:
interesting thread
So.. if the 2.8 is worth the money comparing to the 4
Is the IS version worth the money too?
and is 200 long enough?
I have the 70-300 DO which I like 'cause I do mainly traveling and it's great to have a "small" lens..it bothers me that it's a bit soft though, specially for the price.. so I was thinking of swapping it for a 70-200 but I'm loosing the 200-300.. it's a tough decision to make..
I like to shoot candid people and animals mainly...
any thoughts?
J |
A lot of people use the 70-200 with the 1.4 extender. This brings it almost to the same reach as the 70-300. |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 02:36:19 PM · #39 |
Hmm, at this point my shots consist of outdoors (landscape/wildlife), indoor portrait and indoor stage (conferences, orchestras and chorale concerts).
I'd like something with a good zoom, and I've got the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6. It's all I've ever shot with so it looks good to me. Outside pics look fine and in low-light I use a tripod so shutter speed isn't an issue.
What's going to be an advantage of picking up this Canon versus what I've already got? |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 02:36:51 PM · #40 |
| so heres a question, if you use the 1.4 converter what does it do to the f2.8? |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 02:42:10 PM · #41 |
Also, my question would be how does the Canon compare to what appears to me to be very similar Sigma 70-200 f/2.8EX? I don't see an option in that range with image stablization, but what is the difference other than that?
|
|
|
|
02/27/2006 02:51:34 PM · #42 |
I would like to put a little twist to this discussion. OK so the 70-200 f2.8 IS is a magnificient one. However, of the same physical characteristics- size, weight and colour is the Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS, which I own and have sometimes wondered, specially in low light conditions, whether the 70-200 f2.8 IS would have been a better option. To get the 400mm focal length one could always use the 2x. So if some one out there who has both of them would comment. The 100-400 is an excellent lens on its own and I have never tried shooting at higher than ISO200 for fear of noise.
Message edited by author 2006-02-27 15:11:59. |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 02:58:43 PM · #43 |
To the people that own this lens, how do you think it would do for me taking skiing and boarding photos? Do you think the 200 would be enough + the crop factor of course.
S. |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 03:06:52 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by wee_ag:
Hmm, at this point my shots consist of outdoors (landscape/wildlife), indoor portrait and indoor stage (conferences, orchestras and chorale concerts).
I'd like something with a good zoom, and I've got the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6. It's all I've ever shot with so it looks good to me. Outside pics look fine and in low-light I use a tripod so shutter speed isn't an issue.
What's going to be an advantage of picking up this Canon versus what I've already got? |
you will avoid motion blur with a faster shutter speed in indoor shots ( orchestra, concerts ) at F2.8 without going at very high ISO |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 03:12:15 PM · #45 |
This was shot at a evening tournament under floodlight @1250 ISO, just couldn't have got this shot with anything less than f/2.8.
The only regret you will have is not having bought it sooner. :0)
Message edited by author 2006-02-27 15:12:58. |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 03:46:33 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by dan_pendleton:
This was shot at a evening tournament under floodlight @1250 ISO, just couldn't have got this shot with anything less than f/2.8.
The only regret you will have is not having bought it sooner. :0) |
Is that ISO 1250 or 250 (typo?)? And what would have happened if you had used the f/4 version? |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 03:56:41 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by wee_ag:
Is that ISO 1250 or 250 (typo?)? And what would have happened if you had used the f/4 version? |
I'm sure he did mean ISO 1250. Using the f/4 version would have put him beyond ISO 1600 for that shutter speed, thus he would have been faced with using ISO 3200 (undesirable) or not getting the shot, assuming that he was using the slowest practical shutter speed.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2006 04:10:01 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by dleach:
so heres a question, if you use the 1.4 converter what does it do to the f2.8? |
Yes exactly.. and what about quality? does quality drop a lot with a 1.4 or 2 converter?
Javier |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 04:13:36 PM · #49 |
here's something I found last night. Don't know how useful it is.
link |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 04:43:13 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by jsolsona:
Originally posted by dleach:
so heres a question, if you use the 1.4 converter what does it do to the f2.8? |
Yes exactly.. and what about quality? does quality drop a lot with a 1.4 or 2 converter?
Javier |
With the 1.4x Canon converter, the quality is supposedly very good; I don't have this converter, so I can't directly comment. You lose 1 stop with a 1.4x converter, so the 70-200 f/2.8 becomes a 98-280 f/4.
I do have the Caon 2.0x II, and there is visible softening wide open and some contrast loss. I was less than impressed with this combination on the 10D, but it actually looks like it "plays" better on the 5D, however I will reserve judgement until I have a chance to test it more rigorously. With a 2.0x converter, you lose two stops, so you wind up with a 140-400 f/5.6; now if you have to stop down one or two stops, to gain back sharpness, that puts you at f/8 to f/11, not really that useful.
|
|
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: 07/31/2025 02:00:05 AM EDT.
