I DONT KNOW >>>YOU TELL ME(PLEASE)

[mark]

So it goes.... I think i want the 70-200 f2.8 i will use it for every kind of shot imaginable ..if you dont know already im new to the DSLR game..so i do not have a specific reason for it over the f4...like weddings portrait only etc.Here is why i think i want it ... 1) IS ,this i know i want.I have three lenses with it now love it . 2) i understand thefaster lens thing and get it so in the evening/early morning outside , inside i have a faster lens ... but lets face it will i really shoot wide open that much ??... the money diff between it and the f4 is not in the equation ... think i want the faster lens because i can always stop it down to f4 f8 or what ever ...but if i go with the 70-200f4Is i cant make it faster ....


i already have the 100-400. what would you do knowing you will mostly be using it outside ..majority of the time in daylight ...


mark

[SupraSonic]

why i want to avoid 70-200 mm L F2.8 IS?


1.It's heavy


2.For indoor is not fast enough (compare to 135mm L F2)


3.You have 100mm - 400mm is good enough


4.Get 135mm L F2 instead is good for everthing .I use this lens for wedding ,potrait indoor sports and corporate events.

[Don Burkett]

Excellent advice

[Benjamin]

I think I would still have the 70-200/2.8L IS in your case. The 70-200/2.8 will compansate the 100-400L rather than conflict with it, and the 70-200/2.8really becomes an amazing lens if you can bear with its weight and cost.I found the 70-200/2.8 is especially good for portraiture on full frame body,and the results are addictive!If what you want is just a tele zoom that will cope with any application imaginable, the 70-200/2.8 is the right choice I guess. Personally I will not go for the primes before I have a good zoom.

[mark]

thanks but for what i use a camera for im not thinking a prime too limiting for a guy that spends all his time on boat a golf course or on vacation on the go ... i dont intend to carry two bodies .. here is what i have for lens ... i shoot a cropped body 40d.EF-S10-22,EF-S17-55, EF70-300IS(the focal length i am replacing, and the 100-400IS. So the choices are 70-200IS f2.8 and the same in f4.


appreciate you response


mark

[MVers]

The 70-200/2.8IS and the 100-400 are two entirely different lenses geared towards different uses. If you need a fast lens in that range, get it--you will not regret it. BTW, I own and use both A LOT...I wouldn't give either up.

[Benjamin]

I personally have the 70-200/4L IS. But interestingly, Iinitially boughtthe 2.8L IS and after a short while I took it back andhad theF4L for exchange. What happened to me is not the F4 is better optically, it's because the 2.8L is too heavy to me. I'm always travelling during holiday times, I found it to be hard to carry the 2.8L around. So here is my conclusion, I know that the 2.8L has a rather big advantage of being fast, and it's exquisite optically - that's why I bought it at the first place. However, after using it I do feel that it's too heavy for the trips. So if the weight is not a factor for you, DO GET THE 2.8 VERSION since that it's going to be faster and consequently more usable.


There is also another potential choice. What I did in the end is to get the 70-200/4L IS and compansate it with 85/1.8 and 135/2L; this is, as I can see, more powerful of a package than a single 70-200/2.8L IS. When I want convenience I can take the 70-200 alone; but when I want to pursuit the ultimate effect and IQ, I'll bring the primes and they are not heavy at all!


However, do stick to the 70-200/2.8L IS if weight is ok for you, it's an amazing lens!


Ben

[mark]

thank you all


... i appreciate the advise ... especially from you that have had or still have both


cheers


mark

[Jeff Lucia]

Mark, I've had both the f/4 and f/2.8, both in IS. For me, the 4 was sharper wide open and seemed to render colors better. It was also a LOT lighter. Although I've gotten used to the weight, I look at pictures I shot with the 4 and some of them are sharper and have nicer color than I get with the 2.8. Sometimes I wonder if I madea mistake in switching to the 2.8.

[SupraSonic]

it depends on what body did you attached to it. For EOS 1D MKII any F4 will be sharp.

[mark]

thanks jeff... i wonder the same but i guess i will have to find out myself ..like i said id rather be able to stop down and know i have the 2.8 if needed... then wishing a had it and didnt ...if i have too i guess i can always buy both

[MVers]

thanks jeff... i wonder the same but i guess i will have to find out myself ..like i said id rather be able to stop down and know i have the 2.8 if needed... then wishing a had it and didnt ...if i have too i guess i can always buy both
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Just in case you are not aware, the 70-200/2.8 (2.9lb) is basically the same weight as the 100-400 (3.1lbs) and is nearly identical in length. That should give you a pretty good idea of what you would be dealing with in that department. The 70-400/4IS, OTOH, is half the weight of the 70-200/2.8--which I'll admit is much nicer to carry around on hikes and trips. BUT, and this is a huge but, if you will be shooting in low light the weight difference is negligible. If you ever feel the need for something lighter/smaller and can deal without the versatility of a zoom you could always add an 85/1.8 and a 135/2.8SF or 135L...or simply keep your 70-300 for travel.





-Matt

[Tom Alicoate]

I have the 70-200 f4L non is version. It is toovisible forme sometimes, at school, around town etc. You get some odd looks. The 75-300 doesn't have the IQ or the speed, but, the speed isn't that important to me. (its the difference between ISO 100 or iso 200.) Maybe important maybe not? What I will say is more important is if you like Bokeh. 2.8 is a big difference compared to f4. It is the only reason I would go with the bigger lens. I must admit, I also like the idea of keeping your existing lens and adding a 135L. Wonderful lens, sharp, has reach, and you get candid shots because people think it is nothing special. People really shy away from the big white lenses in my opinion.


Good luck,


Tom

[MVers]

(its the difference between ISO 100 or iso 200.)


Tom
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Or the difference between ISO1600 and ISO3200.