Lens question. Would you change it?
- Thread starter squizza
- Start date
OP
- Messages
- 2,855
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Do you shoot in low light? Quite often
Do you use the lens professionally? Not often
Do you find that you need f2.8 any time? Yup!
If not you're probably not missing a lot.
To add - It's very heavy! Especially with a grip and flash on the camera too!
Regarding the weight I don't really have an issue with it anymore. I carried my 1D mk 2 and my 300mm f4 IS L around for a few hours with no trouble.
Do you use the lens professionally? Not often
Do you find that you need f2.8 any time? Yup!
If not you're probably not missing a lot.
To add - It's very heavy! Especially with a grip and flash on the camera too!
Regarding the weight I don't really have an issue with it anymore. I carried my 1D mk 2 and my 300mm f4 IS L around for a few hours with no trouble.
andyred
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,116
- Name
- And
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi
I asked a similar question a while back http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=207155
Made my mind up to buy the 2.8 - think I'm going to try to get the IS as well, my biggest issue now is whether to save and wait a little longer for poss the MKII.
Having difficulty justifying the extra money to myself, let alone the other half
Hope you make your mind quicker than I did
I asked a similar question a while back http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=207155
Made my mind up to buy the 2.8 - think I'm going to try to get the IS as well, my biggest issue now is whether to save and wait a little longer for poss the MKII.
Having difficulty justifying the extra money to myself, let alone the other half
Hope you make your mind quicker than I did
SIB
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 220
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- No
The F2.8 is great, I've just sold mine as i didn't use it much but I did need the F2.8 for photographing indoor hockey which i was doing recently. The F4 would have struggled to get a decent shutter speed with no flash so it wasn't an option for me
- Messages
- 18,695
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
It depends what that lens is for. I quite enjoy my f4 now as it is tack sharp and very light. Remember f/4 IS is optically better than 2.8 mk1, and it gives a very similar look to the photos.
I agree 2.8 has the 'bad boy' look that everyone longs for, and 2.8 can be important. For weddings and performance I will eventually get it, but may still keep f4 for trips and landscapes. I didn't mention wildlife as your 300mm is much better. 200mm is way too short for most interesting creatures and I gave up.
I agree 2.8 has the 'bad boy' look that everyone longs for, and 2.8 can be important. For weddings and performance I will eventually get it, but may still keep f4 for trips and landscapes. I didn't mention wildlife as your 300mm is much better. 200mm is way too short for most interesting creatures and I gave up.
DigitalRelish
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,240
- Name
- Will
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Do you shoot in low light? Quite often
Do you use the lens professionally? Not often
Do you find that you need f2.8 any time? Yup!
If not you're probably not missing a lot.
To add - It's very heavy! Especially with a grip and flash on the camera too!
Regarding the weight I don't really have an issue with it anymore. I carried my 1D mk 2 and my 300mm f4 IS L around for a few hours with no trouble.
So, why haven't you got it already?!
I used to have the 70-200 f/4 IS, but longed for f/2.8 primarily for enhanced background blurring and low light capability. Personally, I wouldn't pay much attention to the discussions about the difference in optical quality between the f/4 and f/2.8. I've owned and shot with both and the 'inferior' sharpness of the f/2.8 made zilch difference.
If you don't mind the weight and the cost then the f/2.8 IS mk1 is just fab
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
As you want to use f/2.8 a lot, and are aware of the drawbacks, then obviously yes.
The new MkII version is fantastic and will pretty much match your 300L 4 with a 1.4x extender, and it's pretty good with the 2x as well - looked at that way, you get a bargain priced 70-400mm f/2.8-5.6 zoom http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=111 Toggle on the arrow in the middle to compare against the 300L 4.
You could sell both your 70-200 and 300 and it would pretty much cost you nothing
The new MkII version is fantastic and will pretty much match your 300L 4 with a 1.4x extender, and it's pretty good with the 2x as well - looked at that way, you get a bargain priced 70-400mm f/2.8-5.6 zoom http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=111 Toggle on the arrow in the middle to compare against the 300L 4.
You could sell both your 70-200 and 300 and it would pretty much cost you nothing
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Haha! It's a thought that has tempted me ever since I saw just how fantastically good that new 70-200L MkII is. The secret I think is the fluorite glass in the recipe
I've not tried it but I can't see how it wouldn't work very well indeed, and it also makes sense of why Canon upgraded the Mk1 lens, which was already excellent.
Another similar combo is the 300L 2.8, which with extenders makes a very good 300-600mm f/2.8-5.6 'zoom'
Not quite as good as the amazing primes obviously, but more than acceptable IMHO and a fraction of price and so much easier to carry.