Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
*chuckle* The 70-200 F/2.8 IS might make your wallet lighter, but it has quite the opposite effect on everything else. :D I'm not a big zoom person (I like fast primes, faster primes, and anything that has excellent bokeh) but were I to get a 70-200, it would be the F/4 IS version. It's newer than the F/2.8, about 3/4 the price and half the weight. It's also sharper than the F/2.8 at similar apertures. That said, when you need a full stop more light, there is no substitute for a bigger aperture. I hope that monster zoom serves you well.

The 100-400 is a beast, nicknamed the "Africa lens." IIRC, it's a push-pull zoom, which is enough to keep me away from it. If you need that kind of focal length, it is an excellent performer. Certainly, that's a good price for it. Similarly, $400 for the 17-40 is a steal, assuming it's a clean copy. The 17-40 is one of the real bargains in the L range (where "bargains" do not exist). It's a decent walk around lens on an APS-C sensor (I have a 30D) but that's not my real intention for it.

I have two film bodies, a Rebel G (old, low-end model, but well built) and a Rebel K2 (new, decent feature set, but built like a toy). I got both for chump change, it's really a buyer's market for 35mm film bodies, barring exotics like the EOS1v, and the Nikon F5 & F6. My plan is to use the 17-40 as my primary film lens. I do mostly landscapes with film, for which the 17-40 is of course ideally suited. I have several excellent manual focus portrait lenses for use when necessary.

I've used two copies of the 100mm F/2.8 macro, and I found it to be quite a solid piece of glass. It's decent for portraits, but the 200mm F/2.8L is sharper at distance, and has better bokeh. It of course rocks at macro, but if you're serious about that, budget for a ring flash. It's hard to get any DoF at macro distances, without stopping down like crazy. At least this is what my own limited experiences has taught me. $350 is quite a good price for one.

Thanks Knuckledragger, that post on the f/4 vs. f/2.8 was very useful to me. I was concerned about the weight on the 2.8 and thought that would be a deterrent. I assume that I would use it way more outside than in, so that should be less of an issue. That and greater sharpness has me re-thinking my decision.

Indeed the f4 version is sharper and has the 4 stop IS, whereas the 2.8 has what I read a 3-3.5 stop IS.

I bought it because I knew in the end, I'd kick myself for not buying it. Also, since I have alot of friends getting married in the next year or so, I figured it'd be great to have for the indoor, dimly lit settings. Worse comes to worse, I sell it. =T

Good taste Knuckledragger. Taking pictures of Grimlock. I was so disappointed that the next Masterpiece Transformer isn't Grimlock. I guess having Thundercracker is good since it completes the trio... but it's just so boring. Grimlock would have been an awesome addition to my collection.

Posted

Yeah, I went ahead and bought the 70-200 F/4 last night, along with a couple filters and a Crumpler $7 Million Home bag. Gotta be ready to take some shots in Montana in a couple weeks. Glacier, Yellowstone, Tetons, TTVJ, HeadRoom, you know, the big attractions. :D

Posted

Indeed. My 6MDH doesn't fit the 70-200 f2.8 IS. =[

Where did you buy the 70-200 f4 from? f4 or f4 IS? I'm about to put mine up for sale, I was just waiting to make sure the f2.8 focuses fine.

Going up for $425 and comes with a Tiffen filter set.

Posted

Ah, you left out the IS part in your post.

I tried the f4 IS at B&H last week and it's very nice. Definitely much easier to handle since it's smaller and lighter. The f2.8 doesn't fit in my bag. =[

Posted
Ah, you left out the IS part in your post.

I tried the f4 IS at B&H last week and it's very nice. Definitely much easier to handle since it's smaller and lighter. The f2.8 doesn't fit in my bag. =[

Yes, this IS the one (even though I hate the white color):

ef_70-200mm_f4_l_is_usm_v2.jpg

I backed out on a potential deal for a used f/2.8 as I mentioned because it is so big and heavy I thought it would deter me from choosing it. Hopefully I will like the F/4.

Sorry about the bag not fitting the monster lens! Maybe you can sell the 6MDH and pick up a 7MDH? Would that make a difference?

Posted

Not enough I'm afraid. The 7 MDH still has a semi hard time fitting the f4 if you load the lense/camera top down. I have the f2.8 fitting in the 6 MDH, but it's a hack job of the inner inserts, lol. It'll work for now, but isn't a long term solution.

And my next bag I'm looking for a 2 strap backpack. My bag is getting too heavy to be carrying with a shoulder bag or sling.

Posted

Ugh that sucks. What good are tulips that have sat out 24hrs in a truck in 90% humidity?Tulips like cold, hate hot.

Nice thought though. Everytime in the past I sent someone flowers in the past the gesture was well received. Except for the time the boyfriend answered the door and read the gift card. Good thing I signed the card with someone elses name. :(

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.