About a month ago a friend let me borrow his Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens for a weekend. My wife really like the pictures I took but wasn't sure she was ready to let me spend that much on the lens. Yesterday I notice that on B&H you can get this lens for $1474 with the instant rebates. I felt this was a very good price so I sent my wife an email and then called her later that day. Her mother, who's been visiting for the last 10 days, was on her all day to get the lens. She really loved the pictures I took and was an excellent unknown ally for me.
The lens should be here before the weekend and I can't wait to get it in my hands.
About a month ago a friend let me borrow his Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens for a weekend.
Ive been eyeing this lens myself but it seemed to get mediocre reviews. The F/4 variant sems to offer better images. Was it just the speed that made you chose the f/2.8 over the f/4?
About a month ago a friend let me borrow his Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens for a weekend.
Ive been eyeing this lens myself but it seemed to get mediocre reviews. The F/4 variant sems to offer better images. Was it just the speed that made you chose the f/2.8 over the f/4?
Mediocre reviews? Would love to see them, this lens is possibly the best lens in its class without a doubt. I have used the f4, the f4IS, the f2.8 and the f2.8 IS, and whilst the f2.8 non IS is slightly sharper (hardly noticable though) the f2.8IS is the most versatile. The only real downside is the weight of the thing, but thats about it.
About a month ago a friend let me borrow his Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens for a weekend.
Ive been eyeing this lens myself but it seemed to get mediocre reviews. The F/4 variant sems to offer better images. Was it just the speed that made you chose the f/2.8 over the f/4?
About a month ago a friend let me borrow his Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens for a weekend.
Ive been eyeing this lens myself but it seemed to get mediocre reviews.
Reviews on what planet?
I was going to say the same thing but I'm trying to cut down on the snarkiness.
Well, I was trying to cut back on snarkiness too, but since I'm already trying to follow the doctor's orders to cut back on caffeine, I'm tired and crabby and I have a continual throbbing headache. All of which increase my need to be snarky. I'm left with a difficult choice: Do I sacrifice my heath and drink more coffee and become less snarky or do I follow my Doc's advice and be as snarky as ever?
I imagine he is referring to this one which isn't brilliantly complimentary.
Photozone are normally pretty good but I've heard enough good things about this lens to get one if I suddenly come into vast amounts of money!
At least someone was able to understand I was comparing the f/2.8 to the f/4.
Let's put it this way, I would not let the 'not a good match for teleconverters' complaint of that review disuade you from buying the lens. I've owned both, image quality is identical. 2.8, dual mode IS, and being tack sharp while still at a relatively large aperture are certainly benefits of the 2.8.
Let's put it this way, I would not let the 'not a good match for teleconverters' complaint of that review disuade you from buying the lens. I've owned both, image quality is identical. 2.8, dual mode IS, and being tack sharp while still at a relatively large aperture are certainly benefits of the 2.8.
That wasnt a concern at all. I was just looking at the basics. f/4 with better resolution, about $400 cheaper, better image quality at the long end etc. The only benefit I see from the 2.8 version is the speed. I was just curious why the OP chose to go with the 2.8 over the 4. Didnt realize so many people would get so worked up.
Let's put it this way, I would not let the 'not a good match for teleconverters' complaint of that review disuade you from buying the lens. I've owned both, image quality is identical. 2.8, dual mode IS, and being tack sharp while still at a relatively large aperture are certainly benefits of the 2.8.
That wasnt a concern at all. I was just looking at the basics. f/4 with better resolution, about $400 cheaper, better image quality at the long end etc. The only benefit I see from the 2.8 version is the speed. I was just curious why the OP chose to go with the 2.8 over the 4. Didnt realize so many people would get so worked up.
No one is worked up, it's just a funny conclusion to draw on those lenses. Photozone is a good site, but the feedback from people using both lenses in real situations is probably better to rely on.
You should also consider that photozone tested that on a 350D and that one other big bonus of the 2.8 lens is that it will activate extra auto-focus sensors on cameras (though not the 350...). For 400 bucks, it is well worth it for the extras you get.
Let's put it this way, I would not let the 'not a good match for teleconverters' complaint of that review disuade you from buying the lens. I've owned both, image quality is identical. 2.8, dual mode IS, and being tack sharp while still at a relatively large aperture are certainly benefits of the 2.8.
That wasnt a concern at all. I was just looking at the basics. f/4 with better resolution, about $400 cheaper, better image quality at the long end etc. The only benefit I see from the 2.8 version is the speed. I was just curious why the OP chose to go with the 2.8 over the 4. Didnt realize so many people would get so worked up.
I don't think anyone's "worked up".
There are certainly differences between the f2.8 and the f4 lenses and each has its pros and cons. None of them would really qualify either lens as "mediocre".
I've also owned both the f4 and f2.8 versions (both non-IS). I loved the f4 version, but sold it to get a longer reach lens (Sigma 80-400 OS). That lens was also nice, but found I wanted a faster lens, not slower. So, I sold the Sigma to get the Canon f2.8. And I absolutely love it! Both versions give excellent color reproduction, and are amazingly sharp. For me, the extra speed was worth the extra money. I can shoot sports much better (shallower DOF which helps blur the annoying backgrounds). I regularly shoot wide-open and the images are incredibly sharp. I would highly recommend this lens to anyone at any time. You will not be disappointed.
Let's put it this way, I would not let the 'not a good match for teleconverters' complaint of that review disuade you from buying the lens. I've owned both, image quality is identical. 2.8, dual mode IS, and being tack sharp while still at a relatively large aperture are certainly benefits of the 2.8.
That wasnt a concern at all. I was just looking at the basics. f/4 with better resolution, about $400 cheaper, better image quality at the long end etc. The only benefit I see from the 2.8 version is the speed. I was just curious why the OP chose to go with the 2.8 over the 4. Didnt realize so many people would get so worked up.
the f/4 doesnt have better res. than the f/2.8.....
