what to get?

[btaylor]

No worries - I'll see what I can dig up.

[btaylor]

Ok here's an example for you. It's not a show stopping shot but is probably a good example of the detail you can achieve with this combo in lowish light.


Shot with 5D MkII, ISO 800, 1/320sec. 70-200mm f/4L IS @ 200mm and f/4.


Here's the original:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/Bridge-WEB.jpg[/img]


100% Crop at 800 pix wide:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/100_2500_-Crop-native.jpg[/img]


100% Crop + Smart sharpen filter @ 100% and 3 pixels radius


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/100_2500_-Crop-native-sharp-100pc-pt3-pix.jpg[/img]


100% Crop + Smart sharpen filter @ 100% and 3 pixels radius + Noise Reduction @ Strength = 5, Preserve Details = 0, Reduce Colour Noise = 50%, Sharpen Details = 0


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/100_2500_-Crop-native-sharp-100pc-pt3-pix-with-NR.jpg[/img]


So it's pretty incredible if you ask me. You think about a full size print of this image and what distance you might stand back from it to look at it, even without any changes it's bloody good.


Hope this has helped.


Cheers, Ben.

[btaylor]

BTW that was done with ACR and Photoshop CS4. I don't use DPP but I'll see if it's a better result as well.

[cxr]

thank you very much ben! i really appreciate it. the 70-200 f4 IS might be the right & ideal one to get. thanks again!

[Fast Glass]

My camera bag is already heavy as hell carrying just the body, 24-70mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 580 exII and a couple of other accessories.

My camera bag weighs 50lbs! Now thats heavy.


John.

[Jarhead5811]

If you can swing it, without going into debt,I don't think you'd regret getting a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM.

[btaylor]

Yeah don't get me wrong, if I could justify it I'd get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mk II in a heartbeat. But for the amount I use that focal length it's not going to happen for me. I like my f/4, does a good job for me.


John, maybe I need to take a teaspoon of cement and harden up [:P] 50lbs! I didn't realise we had Sylvester Stallone on the forums [] I'm assuming 49.7lbs of that is made up of that enormous 1 billion mm lens of yours.

[Fast Glass]

Well, OK so mabye my camera bag weighs about 5 lbs. And that's also with another case for my600, about 3lbsBut thats still 42lbs of gear. Butif I want to take all my gear that's what I need to carry.My Minolta 600mm weighs about 5.2lbs, about whatthe 300mm f/2.8. It's about the same diameter but longer than the 300.


Yeah, I think I need to thin down my lens colection.[:P]


John.

[cxr]

actually i've taken out the f2.8 IS Mark I in the picture because like what btaylor have said the f2.8 IS Mark II is in a new different league image quality wise compared to the Mark I. so, deciding between the f4 IS or f2.8 IS Mark II. If I could justify the price of the f2.8 IS Mark II, i might be tempted to get that.

[neuroanatomist]

I have theEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM - it truly is an amazing lens! According to Bryan's review, it's a tiny bit sharper than the f/4L IS version - but I really don't think you'd ever notice that in real-world shooting. So, it really comes down to a trade-off in cost/size/weight vs. aperture.


One other thing to consider - will you use it with a teleconverter? If so, the 70-200mm f/2.8 II + 1.4x extender becomes a 98-280mm f/4 thatdelivers surprisingly sharp images,whereas the f/4 lens goes to f/5.6 and suffers more of an IQ hit than the f/2.8 II. Although I wouldn't ever really recommend a 2x extender, the f/2.8 II isn't too bad with one of those, whereas you'd be at f/8 with 2x + the f/4 zoom, meaning no AF on anything but a 1-series body.