My First L???

[unjx]

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

[Jayson]

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.