70-200 f2.8L IS

[Daniel Browning]

I have been saving for months to buy this lens, and now that I am in a position to do so, I am asking myself why.

Wise thinking. [Y]

I primarily shoot wildlife, some nature and landscapes and would like to do some macro.

If you're certain that the 200mm will be long enough, and you'll really use the extra stop, then it's a good idea. However, personally, I find that I don't use f/2.8 all that often for nature, landscapes, and macro. The 70-200 f/4 L IS suits me better for those types of shots because I'm stopped down anyway, and the I.S. gets me from 1/500 to 1/30.


Wildlife is one category where f/2.8 would definitely be useful (except when the DOF is just too ridiculously thin). But it's also the category where 200mm is not nearly long enough. I find that 400mm is barely adequate. But if you're confident that you can use 200mm without cropping then go for it.


I want to emphasize how important it is to *not crop* when using the 70-200 f/2.8. As soon as you start doing that, it would have been better to stick with the 100-400, even at f/5.6. For overall image quality and especially noise. For example, if you shoot 200mm f/2.8 ISO 100, then crop it to the same angle of view as 400mm f/5.6 ISO 400 -- the 200mm f/2.8 ISO 100 will have a lot more read noise ("shadow noise").


Hope that helps.

[bob williams]

I want to emphasize how important it is to *not crop* when using the 70-200 f/2.8

I was thinking more of a general purpose/landscape lens when considering the 70-200. I do agree with you on the cropping issue. I used to try and crop to enlarge, needless to say, I wasn't happy with the results. Now I avoid any cropping unless it is for minor compositional adjustments.

[bob williams]

Daniel, one more thing---Congrats on your 1000+ posts. Like so many others have said, I have learned a great deal reading your comments. Thanks again,


Bob