now i've got a dilemma

dizzy

dizzy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
875
Name
David Thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
On the way to the station today I went past a camera shop and thought I'd have a look. They had the 70-200 F4L and it is the first time I've seen it in the flesh. I have to say I was rather underwhelmed, especially sat next to the F2.8L! The 2.8 and the 100-400 were B E A U T I F U L!!

Now then, do I go for the F2.8L and have to wait for the 17-40L or go for sigma 70-200 F2.8 and the 17-40L or go for 70-200 F4L and 17-40L as I was planning?? If I go for a 70-200 I'm going to have to get a TC and the 2.8 would obviously work better with that. So... What should I do???:help:
 
dizzy said:
On the way to the station today I went past a camera shop and thought I'd have a look. They had the 70-200 F4L and it is the first time I've seen it in the flesh. I have to say I was rather underwhelmed,
Click to expand...

No need to be, This is one of Canon's sharpest lenses in the whole line-up..;)

So... What should I do???:help:
Click to expand...

Stick with your game plan, Forget the Sigma..:thumbs:
 
as this is likely to be a long term commitment, do you think it's worth going for the 2.8L (non IS) while they're going cheap? I could get one for ~550 quid. Or will I not regret the F4L?? Now I can see why I drive the wife up the wall, I was always like this when it came to buying my kit when I was still racing! I just need to try and get it right :bonk:
 
so you are basing your decision on how the lens looks? Strange. I have the 70-200 F/4 and i cannot fault it in any way whatsoever, it's razor sharp, also it's a lot lighter and smaller than the 2.8 isn't it? I also have a 2x teleconvertor and i've not had any probs with it.
 
nope, but next to the 2.8 it just doesn't seem as well built. It was more because the guy in the shop seemed to think there was a big difference in the quality between the two and that the 2.8 would be much more effective with a TC. I'm not that worried about the weight/looks (i'm used to running around with heavy backpacks!), I'm just anxious not to get 8 months down the line and wish that I'd sacrificed a bit more to get something that's going to stay in the bag for a long time!
 
Instead of a 2.8 and tele why not go for the f/4 and a 300mm or 400mm f/4 prime? The two lenses wouldn't cost much more than the 2.8 and the image quality of the prime would be much better than the 2.8 with a 2x tele and a stop faster to boot...
 
how much would a 400 F4 be then? My original plan was to get the 70-200F4L, 17-40L then go for a TC and long prime when/if I could afford it!

Ouch, just looked it up! That would be 3848 of your finest pounds... The f5.6 is just over 800 so that might be a possibility in the long run and same as 70-200 2.8 with a 2xTC.
 
Another option would be the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, that will work with a TC and would give you a good two lens set with the 17-40L... and save a few quid as well...
 
how's the IQ on that compared to a 70-200L?
 
By all accounts you'd have to pixel peep to see the difference. I very nearly got one instead of the 135L but I was persuaded to spend the extra on the prime by my lovely wife ;)

There have been some reports of front focus issues on early versions but a trip to Sigma soon sorts that out.
 
Why do there have to be so many lovely lenses, I'm all confused again!!!
 
That's the way it goes :)

Another option - but used not new. Then if you don't like it you can sell for about what you paid and get something else.
 
Building up your lenses is a long term game plan.( Unless you're loaded) Get the best you can and take your time. ;)
 
Not a bad idea that RobertP, thanks. I'm not sure what the second hand market is like over there. I'm always a little dubious about buying really expensive glass off ebay, especially as the F4 L 70-200 is only $550 at the moment and F2.8L ~$1100.
 
CT said:
Building up your lenses is a long term game plan.( Unless you're loaded) Get the best you can and take your time. ;)
Click to expand...

Sage words indeed, thanks CT!
 
Dizzy

There is a lot of sage advice here. I've got the 70-200 f4. it is very sharp, it's also light. Half the weight of the of the f2.8. That extra 700 grams doesn't sound a lot but after a few hours it can make the difference. OK I know it's not exactly the same weight difference , but think of the extra weight being the equivalent to a bag of sugar.!!

Best advice given so far is list the lenses you would like the put them into priorities. Very few of us have the luxury of buying a complete kit in one go. Also look out for GOOD secondhand bargains,
 
WIth the 70-200's my favourites, in order of preference were

Canon F4
Sigma F2.8
Canon F2.8IS

I did actually have all three in the bag for a short time. Never tried the F4 IS but by all accounts it's supposed to be superb.
 
you prefered the F4 and the f2.8 sigma to the canon 2.8 IS?? Why?
 
dizzy said:
you prefered the F4 and the f2.8 sigma to the canon 2.8 IS?? Why?
Click to expand...

Both sharper than the IS, both lighter. Both at least as quick to focus, in fact if anything the F2.8IS hunts more than either of them. BUT, the IS has weather proofing, that's why I kept it.
 
it'll be the 2.8, non iS that i'd get if i went that route. How's that compare for sharpness?
 
supposed to be about the same as the F4, maybe slightly better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top