Yes that is true Keith, but I was talking about him changing his 70-200 f4 IS for a 70-200 f2.8 non IS, so that's where it came from. And for as far as I know, that lens does have two mode IS. I should have stated that better.Originally Posted by Keith B
completely agree 110%. Never thought of that[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]
24-105 only has one mode IS. No panning mode.
It does have USM, actually.
Sorry did not know that, so yes that is a good option. Also consider the 50 1.4 then. It might be a more usable focal length on a crop?
I'm still thinking you should keep the 70-200. Yes the f2.8 gives you the opportunity to stop action, at a shutter speed one stop faster. Also I'd like to point out to jnort002, yes it does stop action in your pictures. But to be very honest, the first picture does not really catch my eye. You say it is a finish-photo, but I couldn't tell that if you hadn't already said that. The second picture though is really nice, it shows the advantage of f2.8. But I assume you do not always take pictures only at the start and finish? During the races it is nice to do some panning once in a while. I always thought cyclers where a pain in the ass to photograph. Always that annoying helmet making big shadows on their faces and they tend to look at the road a lot :P so taking pictures from the front isn't giving me the nice results I want to have. In that case I would rather take a nice panning photo, which shows speed and their face and I know the sportsmen and women do like them! (Especially the amateurs love them very much)
Also the 70-200 f4 IS is a much more handhold-able lens for the times you don't shoot sports and could go with a much lower shutter-speed. It's also very sharp at f4, only getting a little better stopping down, so for portraits it is really nice.
About the 24-105 exchange. If you're hungry for more low-light capability, the 17-55 is a nice lens to go with. It benefits from IS and f2.8 so it's really good. So yes it would be a good deal. It isn't wheathersealed, and for outdoors, the 24-105 is probably a nicer focal range. You could go from a familyportrait to a single headshot with one lens. For indoors the 17-55 is really something to think about. I wouldn't go for the 24-70. For as far as I'm concerned, the 17-55 is a really great lens. About the 24-70...really nice lens but I can't justify the cost over the 17-55 and the loss of IS. The 17-55 just takes really good quality pictures. (That is of course not considering the full-frame ability..) Good luck mate
Reply With Quote