Printable View
I'm shooting with a Canon 50D and my primary lens is the 17-55 f2.8 IS. I love it but need something with a little more reach. I'll be shooting indoor and outdoor sporting events (some with low light), landscape, and some wildlife. I can't spend over $2,000. The 70-200 f2.8 IS seems to fit my criteria. Your thoughts?
If I'm shooting daylight landscape and wildlife, I'd like to add an extender. Comments or suggestions about the 1.4x or 2.0x?
Talk you out of it? Sorry, can't do that.
It's a lot of money, yes, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't find this lens to be one of the essential lenses that every Canon shooter should own. It's a great lens. Based on what you're planning to shoot, just be sure you don't compromise for anything but f/2.8 for that focal length range - you'd definitely be sorry.
As far as extenders I have both the 1.4x and 2.0x; and while I purchased them specifically for this lens, I've never really used them with it (other than just playing around). I now have a 300mm f/2.8, and find the extenders to be much more useful with it- primarily for shooting outdoor sports. I don't find a 98-280mm f/4 to be all that useful; I'd much rather have f/2.8 and just crop for the frame I want (most cameras today have far more megapixels than needed for most final uses). While a 140-400mm focal length can be useful, it comes at a steep cost of speed (f/5.6) which make it useless for most indoor sports - but would likely be alright for landscape and wildlife. If that's the case then I'd suggest the 2.0x over the 1.4x - considering cost and that you're planning to use it on a zoom lens, you get more reach (200mm vs. 80mm) for the price.
Yes, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS would be great for you. There are some other alternatives. If you like to shoot most of your sports at 1/500+, then the IS will not be a benefit. It could help a lot for hand-held landscapes and wildlife with teleconverters, though. You could trade the I.S. for the 100mm f/2 (great for low light sports).
As for the teleconverters, the 1.4X is the safest bet. You'll get much better image quality (contrast, resolution, and noise) than cropping. The 2X can be very good on the 70-200 f/2.8 (compared to cropping), but only if you put in extra work: correct the chromatic aberration, distortion, and tune the sharpening. At the very least it will result in less noise than straight cropping (at ISO 1600 and below).
Depends on the big picture – in addition to the 2k now, will you have an additional $700 in another 6-8 months?
If so, consider saving $700 ( 2k - 1.3k ) and getting a 70-200 ƒ4 IS now ( lighter, better IS, and better IQ relative to the ƒ2.8 ). Come Summer, sell your 50D for >$300 and buy a 7D ( better focus, higher usable iso, and higher frame rate )
Is the 7D ƒ4 IS combo equivalent to the 50D ƒ2.8 IS combo - nope. For starters you won't have the cross AF bump from ƒ2.8 glass. However, you'll have a 7D ( very usable 6400 iso ) with 17-55 ƒ2.8 IS and 70-200 ƒ4 IS!
Maybe the 60D will be in the $1400 ball park come August and you can opt to keep your 50D. Nothing quite like having two lenses to shoot without swapping them - mount the 17-55 ƒ2.8 IS on the 50D and the 70-200 ƒ4.0 IS on the 60D.
To talk you out of this lens would be doing a disservice to you and the opposite of the purpose of this forum, this is an excellent lens you will love!
<sarcasm>Don't get it. It will ruin your life. You'll find yourself taking pictures too much, because it's such a great lens, and you may forget to eat, and thus starve. Instead, get theCanon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens- that way, you'll be disappointed with your pictures, and have time to do other things with your life.</sarcasm>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomhot
Interesting, I hadn't thought about that. Couple points I'll consider. I just bought my 50D this December and would have another $700 in another few months but I would likely be looking for a new wife... I'll let you know how it turns out.
Thanks for all the great feedback! Yes, I used a bit of sarcasm to get your attention. I just wanted to "pull out" the options and potential negative comments before I invest in this lens. <sarcasm> I won't be getting it anytime soon. </sarcasm>[:#]
I really wanted this lens, but instead I bought the 300/4 IS and the 70-200/4 non-IS for somewhat less money. I am happy with the decision, since 200 wasn't long enough for birds and the like. The non-IS 70-200 is stupendously sharp, light, and can be found readily on the Craigslist, "I just upgraded and am desperate for cash" market. It is my favorite hiking lens.
<sarcasm>I fully agree. Do not get the 70-200 2.8 L IS. It is too heavy and expensive. TheCanon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is lighter and much more affordable. Image quality isn't really important, anyway. [;)]</sarcasm>
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexniedra
Why waste money on such an expensive and heavy lens like the 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 II? It would be lighter and much more affordable to just smash the bottom off of a coke bottle and duct tape it to the lens mount. [;)]
[quote=Daniel Browning]
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexniedra
...that wouldn't work asthe coke bottle lenswould be a prime and he clearly wants a zoom!
hey why dont you just tape a kaleidoscope onto the lens mount see what pictures you get then? hahaha
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
The Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens clearly the best lens for you then! You'll lack versitility with a prime like Coca-Cola's EF Coke II or the EF Diet Coke II. [;)]
Besides, the pictures that I get from my EF Coke II have this brownish tint to them... I don't understand why...