Printable View
OK, finally ordered some lenses!
Unfortunately I couldn't order the 70-200 2.8 II b/c I have to have the $ for a car coming later this year, but I got the 70-200 f/4 IS instead.
The 17-55 will come soon afterward.
Thanks to all who helped me make this decision. [H]
brendan
what? who needs a car when there's fast glass as an option? enjoy the new lens. get some bag-piper music playing in the background for the ceremonial unboxing...or is that just me?
I think you made a very good selection. Those were among the first lenses I bought for my Digital rebel, and served me very well on both Rebel bodies, and later 30D and 40D. I sold my 17-55mm when I sold my 40D, but the 70-200F4 IS works great on my 5D MK II and 1D MK III. A 24-105mm L replaces the 17-55, its also a great lens.
I sold the 17-55mm for about what it cost originally, so it was a good buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erno james
'fraid not... [;)]
Yep, I'll get some of that [8]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scalesusa
Thanks. I tried to be practical. Next lens will be an 85 1.8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erno james
My 70-200 f/2.8 is faster than your Mustang!
Good choice - the 70-200mm f/4L IS is a wonderful lens.
congratulations Brendan
Have fun with them Brendan![Y]
Quote:
Originally Posted by piiooo
I'm afraid I listen to Bach. [:O]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikehillman89
Mine's faster than a rocket! 1.5 meters to infinity in about 1 second. [:P]
Good choices, Brendan.
Got 'em yet? When you do, let us know your first (and second) impressions!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan
BAM! In your face!
Yep, my 70-200 f/4L IS arrived yesterday (17-55 in a week or so). It's frickin' awesome! When using f/2.8 indoors with the 70-200 f/4 I found myself using very low ISOs a lot; and decided what the heck I'd just bump the ISO a bit instead of spending $1500 more. It's also half the weight which is VERY nice. I'll post some pictures when as I take them .
What body are you using? It'd be interesting to know if I could bump the ISO and avoid the extra cost as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikehillman89
I use the 7D. It's not the best lowlight body but I find it to be superb from ISO 800-1600 and it's tons better than xxD bodies, which have significant noise at ISO 800.
I know f/2.8 is nice, but I realized that usually I'd be shooting at ISO 100-400 and a fast(er) shutter speed and so decided that I could bump ISO (I use ISO 320-640 using f/4) and b/c of 4-stop IS I could use a slower shutter speed if necessary. Plus, it's half the weight and $1500 less expensive!
Good to know! I'll be picking my 7D up on Saturday and my next hunt would probably be for a 70-200 so it's good to know what others think about bumping the ISO instead of spending money on what could be another lens...
Ahhh but theEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM is such a sweet lens. Sure, it's twice the cost of the f/4L IS, and twice the weight...but soooo sweet. [:D]
I've found myself using it frequently at daybreak and twilight, when myEF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]LIS USM is just too slow.
The f/2.8L IS MkII has an extra 'real' stop, and an extra stop of IS rating, meaning shots of still subjects effectively two stops faster than with the f/4L IS. I've got late twilight shots at 200mm and 1/13 s (already at ISO 3200) with the MkII, which wouldn't have been possible with the f/4 lens(I'm not about to go to ISO 6400 or 12800!!).
The other factor (for me) is that the f/2.8 does very well with a 1.4x teleconverter, yielding a 98-280 f/4 IS zoom that delivers great IQ and is weather sealed. The f/4L IS doesn't hold up optically as well to an extender, and it's also f/5.6 with the 1.4x.
But, having said that, the f/4L IS is a great lens, and at twice the cost, you are definitely paying a huge premium for that one stop of aperture. Then again, it's only 2 times the cost - not 5 times the cost like the 85mm f/1.2L that I'm considering, vs. the 85mm f/1.8...
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Having used both, I decided making do on <i style="text-decoration: underline;"]some[/i]occasions (I do not feel limited by f/4, even in dark indoor rooms especially w/ a flash) rather than spending $1500 more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
"The more we pay, the better we like it, see?"
--Amanda (Katharine Hepburn) in Adam's Rib
[:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
sometimes.
Well John...the expectations get higher as well [;)] With such an expensive lens it isn't even possible to make a bad photo right? ....right?? [A]
I know that if I would stand next to you taking pictures of the same thing I would try everything in my powers to outperform you, just because you have more expensive gear [:P]
Anyway have fun with both lenses Brendan! Enjoy them to the fullest!
Well Jan that's a very debatable and sensitive topic -- the balance between overloading with gear and using it to the fullest and learning how to use it properly. But let's not start that one here [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
hehe thanks. After the 17-55 a supertele will be on order -- debating between 500 f/4 and 300 2.8 (I actually really like the 300mm focal length).
In this corner we have Brendan with lots of gear! And in this corner we have Jan with a creative mind!
Round 1! Fight!
Haha Mike, I must say I really like a good fight, but I'll skip this one due to my shoulder injury [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
Okay [;)] It wasn't really my idea to start a debate. To be honest...if I had the money I would have done the same [;)] And I'm not really using cheap gear either [A] I just happen to have encountered such a thing during a bird of prey show...Me and my 450D and 70-200 f4L next to a guy with a 1D3 and 100-400 and I just had to make better pictures...and I did hihi....at least I think so [8-|] But perhaps it was also that he was acting like a giant [edited by moderator], full of himself....
Anyway...I said I wouldn't start the debate [;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
Hmm apperently you don't really mind the f4 aperture of your 300mm since the 500 f4L is in your list. Also will the 300mm f2.8 be much better for you than the 300mm f4L? Or would you have to sell the 300mm f4L to buy one of both? If I was photographing birds etc, no doubt I would go for the 500mm f4L. Anyway I'm interested in the outcome! Have fun Brendan! Sorry Mike for not giving you a good fight [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
I don't mind f/4 at all. In fact for many bird shots f/4 will give you a DoF undesirably thin. Which is why the 500 is a more logical choice, but f/2.8 is a plus and the 300 is more handholdable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
Are Joel's amazing shots with his 300mm f/2.8L + 1.4x II Extender having any impact on your thoughts here? Those are certainly some wonderful images, although he's also got quite a setup with the blind, etc.
Well if you get a 300mm 2.8 then I may be interested in taking your 300mm f/4.0 off your hands [;)]. The 300mm is a good 2k cheaper than the 500mm too, so you could easily grab an extender as well and have lots of wiggle room or an extension tube as well.
It's okay. We'll figure out another time for a good fight haha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Behind Joel's house there is a huge wooded area and he has a HUGE advantage over me in terms of number of birds (I see a woodpecker in my yard every other month or so) and available perches. BTW Joel wishes he got the 500.
The 300 2.8 is also $2000 cheaper, let's not forget that [I]
But I think I'll pick the 500 because although it is a great lens, I don't shoot sports and I'd stop it down too often for it to be a legitimate purchase, especially for $3000 more.
so yeah. 500 it is for now.