Adam,
After reading the review of the 135L I am leaning toward it also, but having used the 70-200 lens it is very very tempting also, decisions, decisions.....lots of time to think this one out due to $$$$ like other posters here.
Adam,
After reading the review of the 135L I am leaning toward it also, but having used the 70-200 lens it is very very tempting also, decisions, decisions.....lots of time to think this one out due to $$$$ like other posters here.
When friends buy their first DSLR, I tell them it is like owning a crack pipe.
And that first EF70-200MM L IS USM, won't satisfy the addiction. You'll realize you can't live without the EF300MM f/2.8 or it's brother the EF400MM, then some fool at a camera show will hand you the 1DMKIII and say, "just hold the button down and see what she can do."
The madness never ends.
As for the EF70-200MM f/2.8 L IS USM, it is my favorite lens. Ireally can't remember packing for any kind of shoot and not taking it along. My EF24-70MM L USM,travels nearly as much, but the 70-200is just a picture taking machine.
I feel for you! I'm in the same boat, only with the 70-200 f/4 IS. I want that lens so much, and it's so far away from happening. Especially being without much money, one kid, and one on the way!
R6 II --- RF 14-35mm f/4L IS --- RF 24-105mm f/4L IS --- RF 70-200mm F4L IS --- RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS --- RF 24mm f/1.4L --- RF 600mm f/11
70D --- EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 --- EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS --- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS --- EF 85mm f/1.8
The first time I used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I felt like giggling.
Consider purchasing used. Not sure where you live, but I use craigslist.org for all of my lens purchases. The 70-200 f2.8 IS is definately the workhorse in my bag and gets the most use. I personally won't by a lens with a focal length of 200+ without IS now. As a fall back you should look at the EF 135 f2.0 L. It is a remarkable lens and is so reasonably priced. I purchased mine used for $650.
Originally Posted by kitaoka
IS makes a lens way more useful, for sure, though I'm not looking to ditch my 400 f/5.6 because my 100-400 zoom has IS and the same aperture at 400mm. If you've got light, and something steady to brace yourself on, or can deal with a tripod, or just press it against a tree, or lay down on a rock, or whatever.... But yeah, IS would be a fantastic addition. If there was an IS version, i'd totally be looking to trade in...
It depends upon what you want to do. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is the "worst" of Canon's 70-200mm zooms from an image quality standpoint, but it may be the most useful for some purposes. If you want the best image quality and to save $600, get the 70-200mm f/4L IS, the best of the four. (Several reviewers have called the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS the "best zoom lens," period--any size, any manufacturer.)
The f/2.8L IS lens has some good features (relatively wide aperture, reasonably good, though not great, IS), but it is VERY bulky and heavy. (Believe me, I carried one around all day last Friday at a horse show. For that purpose, I didn't have a lot of choice, though. The show was indoors and I made good use of the f/2.8 aperture.) Whether it's best for a particular person would depend upon what she/he wants to do with it. Sports and portraits would favor the f/2.8 lens (for faster shutter speeds and better blurred background, respectively), while landscapes, wildlife, flowers, etc., would favor the f/4 lens (sharper, better contrast, lighter weight, much better IS).
I have both the f/2.8L IS and the f/4L IS lenses. (Well, I also have the f/4L non-IS, but it's destined for eBay.) I bought them used on eBay, but saved only $374 on the f/2.8L IS and $166 on the f/4L IS, compared to the prices on B&H. Like Ken Rockwell, I've found that I can handhold the f/4L IS lens at a SLOWER shutter speed than the f/2.8L IS, despite the aperture advantage. (At 200mm, I can get good results (better than 50% keepers) down to 1/15 sec on the f/4L IS, but have to go to 1/25-1/30 with the f/2.8L IS.) That's because the f/4L IS has a better IS system. The lighter weight also makes it easier to hold. The f/4L IS is ergonomically better--one can easily zoom with one finger of the right hand, for example.
Consider how often you would use the f/2.8 aperture (realizing that the lens is not spectacularly sharp at that aperture) and whether that would be worth $600 (new) or $400+ (used).
George Slusher
Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Eugene, OR
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote