Originally Posted by greggf
Thanks
Canon 40D, 70-200 f/4 @ 200mm f/5.6, 1/2000 ISO 640 AP -1 handheld. Don't remember the distance but I was some what near the outside rail and he was on the inside rail so not very far. A little was cropped from the front, wish I'd grabbed more of the flying dirt at the back.
Hey, Gregg. I know where you're coming from concerning the budget part--no one said photography was cheap. Anyhow, that's up to the OP to decide and since he listed the f/2.8 initially it is the best choice, IMO. I respect that you love your f/4 version, but if you had the funds to do it all over wouldn't you rather have gone with the more versatile f/2.8? The second sample you posted represents much nicer bokeh than the first, I would call it great. BUT it cannot do it as consistently as the f/2.8. As I'm sure you're aware bokeh depends on a few factors--aperture, FL (focal length), FD-S (focal distance to subject), and distance from subject to background. So say we shot the same subject (your son?) you posted the first time around at the same distance etc etc, you with the f/4 and I with the f/2.8. The lens to generate the better bokeh is a no brainer. That was the point of me posting the samples, if done so with the f/4 version I would have gotten considerably different results. I'm not one to say any certain lens cannot generate great bokeh, but I will say there are lenses that can do so more consistently and reliably. As for competing against a prime like the 85/100...no the 70-200 cannot compete with the 85/1.8 at 85/2.8 or the 100/2 at 100/2.8 BUT the 85/1.8 and 100//2 cannot compete with the 70-200 at any other FL. This is where versatility steps in, and with children and sports its an important factor. Don't get me wrong, the 85/1.8 and its older brother are great lenses (I own the 85) but I wouldn't be without my 70-200/2.8IS for its outstanding versatility and performance. In the end, anyway you cut it, the OP can't really go wrong with which lens he decides to go with--they are all great in their own respects.
Just one more opinion...
I have the f/2.8 IS. For tennis or kids in the yard, I would rather give up the IS than the stop. I like the background blur of the f/2.8, and f/2.8 is better for stopping action. Plus if you are shooting during the day, there is usually plenty of light outside without IS.
On the other hand, if you want to take shots at twilight, you might consider IS. Some say IS is useless for kids because they move around so much, and they do. But they also stay still a lot, and I've gotten good pictures of kids with IS and very low shutter speeds. And if you are shooting tight portraits (head & shoulders) of children, you might want to stop down to at least f/4 anyway (DOF is reduced for cluseups, and if you are taking a picture of a childs head at f/2.8, your dof is tiny... you probably won't get both eyes in focus).
Bottom line: f/2.8 IS gives most versatility. If pressed to choose between IS and f/2.8, I would pick IS for shooting tight portraits in low light, but go with f/2.8 for tennis or general backyard kid pictures.
Not an easy decision. FWIW, I had the f/4 non-IS and loved it, too.
Some have suggested the 24-105 f/4 IS. I have this lens also. I agree that it is a better "all around" choice (if I'm going somewhere where I don't know what to expect, I take this lens). The IS plus wide angle means low shutter speeds, so it is a fantastic very low light lens (for still subjects). And I would definitely prefer 24-105 for scenery photos (where probably want to go wider than 70mm and usually stop down anyway). But for kids in the yard or tennis, I recommend the longer lens.
Hope this helps-
Jon.
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana;"]Have you considered the - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens? I know it is not quite the focal range you seem to be looking for, but it is a great first L lens.<o></o
I'm a rookie to photography and just starting to build my kit. The lens recommendations on this site for different purposes, combined with the reviews, have been a gold mine of information. I currently have one lens, the 24-105mm f/4 IS, and I love it.
I'm now looking for a longer zoom and will probably pick up the 70-200mm. However, I'm facing the same difficulty choosing between the f/4 and f/2.8. On the one hand, lighter, less expensive package, better optics on the f/4; superior action stopping and low light performance on the f/2.8 but heavier and more expensive.
The thing that's tilting my decision more and more towards the f/4 IS is that both the IS and non-IS versions of the f/2.8 are much older lenses (f/2.8 IS 7-and-a-half years; f/2.8 14-years; f/4 IS 2-and-a-quarter years; f/4 10-and-a-half years). This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm concerned that Canon might be updating the f/2.8 IS in the near term with a version II. Possible improvements could include third generation 4-stop IS and re-working of the optics to be on par with the f4. The last thing I want happening is to buy the f/2.8 IS, then have Canon come up with a better version in 12-months.
The 24-70 f/2.8 is very well regarded as well and I need a low-light general purpose lens. But I'm holding off buying the 24-70 for the same reason -- age (6-and-a-quarter years). The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS was introduced just under 3-years ago, and it would seem logical that this "L" would have IS added pretty soon in a version II.
Am I reading too much into the age of the lenses, or should I just go and get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS or 24-70 f/2.8?
My take, and perhaps others who know more will correct me:
I think you are indeed reading too much into lens age.
Optical designs don't age nearly as fast as electronics. These are all modern lenses. Canon updates camera bodies regularly, but I wouldn't hold my breath for an update on a lens.
IMO, weight and cost are much more important factors in this decision than age and image quality.
As for a good general purpose low-light lens, for still subjects I suggest you consider the 24-105 f/4 IS. The IS makes it hand-holdable in lower light than the 24-70, and the longer focal length makes it (IMO) just as good a portrait lens (very subjective, I admit). Of course, if you plan to take pictures of rapidly moving things, the extra stop trumps IS.
Best of luck-
Jon.
I toatlly agree with Alex on both lens opinions.
I have both a 70-200 f/4L and a 17-40 f/4L and find them a perfect match outside. I also disagree with MOF_Sydney regarding the 70-200 for portraits. I absolutley love my 70-200 for portraits and the bokeh at 200mm is pretty much as creamy as it gets.
The 17-40 is great for landscape photography. I also use it for a walk-about lens, decent for a quick portrait at 40mm, great indoors if light is good (but works great with a 580 flash).
I bought the f/4 set at the time because of money, but if you can afford to buy a wider aperture that would be ideal.
Gregg: those are great shots! Thanks for posting
Photos:
Peregrine Falcon Portrait
Lens: EF70-200mm f/4L USM)
1/800 f/4.0, ISO800 @ 200mm
Water on some clover
Lens: EF17-40mm f/4L USM
1/60 f/5.6, ISO 200 @ 40mm
I appreciate all of the advice I received on this subject. I looked at the options out there and the pricing and found a 70-200 f4 IS new for about $970. I just couldn't break the $1000 mark just yet. In looking for the lens, I just couldn't see getting the non-IS version for only $250 to $300 less. I think the IS will well make up that difference to me in future pictures. I chose the f4 over the f2.8 for two reasons 1) I found it for under $1000 and seemingly from a reputable dealer. Hopefully that is the case when it arrives here Thursday. 2) I decided that at this point in time I will not have a whole lot of indoor shooting without lighting assistance, so I think the f4 should do the trick. The f2.8 was very tempting, but I believe in IS and I know it has saved many of my shots on previous lenses. Once the lens arrives and this darn snow melts, I will try to post some shots for critique. Thanks everyone again for their input.
Hey Joel or anyone else out there, I too have just picked up this lens and I have been reading about the 1.4 extender, has anyone with this same lens have good or bad experience with using the extender?
let me know
mike
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
