200mm/f2.8L

[lightning]

at 5 feet, the dragonflies or butterflies won't be too big in the frame. The dedicated macro lenses would be more useful in my opinion.

Yeah, agree go for dedicated macro lens with 1:1 magnification at least!

 

[speedblade]

heh heh, i've said it b4 and i'll say it again..... 70-200 2.8L IS is NO LIGHT WEIGHT.

Physically and Optically.

Feels like after rifle PT at the end of the day!

 

[Jack Chen]

What are you going to use it for??? If you use it for shooting at night or dim light, forget it. Get the IS. At 200mm, i dun think anyone can handhold steady to get a clean shot at night/Dim light.

I've used a 70-200 F2.8 L though. It's very sharp when your shutter speed is high.

Hi,

I'm using it for travelling, street shooting, as well as landscape photography, and may be portraits. So weight is my priority, then follow by the price. Optics wise, I've no doubt on "L" lenses.

 

[AhSeng]

Hi,

I'm using it for travelling, street shooting, as well as landscape photography, and may be portraits. So weight is my priority, then follow by the price. Optics wise, I've no doubt on "L" lenses.

Well.. in that case.. i'd recommend a zoom rather if you are traveling. For portraits, 200mm is a bit long. Doesn't it? More so if you're on a 1.6 Crop.

I personally won't bring along a white L for my travelling as it draws too much attention to would be.. thieves and robbers and the weight is a huge huge problem..

I would recomend you the 70-300 IS USM F4-5.6 instead. It weights in at 630grams. 160grams lighter as compared to the 200 F2.8 @ 790 grams. The IS will help a lot on the telephoto range. Though it's not an L.. but IQ seems quite good but will seem a little soft at 300. If you're on a 1.6X crop, it'll become a superzoom.. 112-480 mm. You just need to watch out for the portrait issues -> http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=171768&highlight=70-300+IS+portrait and -> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=16801333&page=1. Best of all, it seems to be within your budget.

Do some read some of the reviews here -> http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294
Here is a thread that is comparing the 70-200 F4 with a 70-300 IS.
-> http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=183243&highlight=70-300+IS+portrait

Everyone will love to own a 70-200 F2.8 IS USM. But, the majority of us couldn't afford it. If you had the extra budget, go for it.. but i think the 70-300 IS USM fits most of what you describe you would be using it for.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Ah_Seng]

Hmm....another Ah Seng here....interesting.....:bsmilie:

 

[Jack Chen]

Well.. in that case.. i'd recommend a zoom rather if you are traveling. For portraits, 200mm is a bit long. Doesn't it? More so if you're on a 1.6 Crop.

I personally won't bring along a white L for my travelling as it draws too much attention to would be.. thieves and robbers and the weight is a huge huge problem..

I would recomend you the 70-300 IS USM F4-5.6 instead. It weights in at 630grams. 160grams lighter as compared to the 200 F2.8 @ 790 grams. The IS will help a lot on the telephoto range. Though it's not an L.. but IQ seems quite good but will seem a little soft at 300. If you're on a 1.6X crop, it'll become a superzoom.. 112-480 mm. You just need to watch out for the portrait issues -> http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=171768&highlight=70-300+IS+portrait and -> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=16801333&page=1. Best of all, it seems to be within your budget.

Do some read some of the reviews here -> http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294
Here is a thread that is comparing the 70-200 F4 with a 70-300 IS.
-> http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=183243&highlight=70-300+IS+portrait

Everyone will love to own a 70-200 F2.8 IS USM. But, the majority of us couldn't afford it. If you had the extra budget, go for it.. but i think the 70-300 IS USM fits most of what you describe you would be using it for.

Just my 2 cents.

70-300mm :think:
Thanks, will take a look later if I'm going to CP.

 

[wiskiz]

Actually... I was in a similar predicament... and decided to get a 18-200 (Tamron) 3rd party lens instead. the 70-200 can't achieve a wide enough for some of the scenery shots...

If you do get 70-200 f2.8, its rather heavy and quite eye-catching as mentioned by many. Not practical for bringing around for a walk.

Whats more.. with a 1.6x crop factor, makes the angle even narrower...