Canon 70-200mm L Lens

[buckwheat]

when possible, zoom with your legs

:thumbsup:

 

[satay16]

personally, i think you should go for the f/2.8 if you have the finanical power. i tried using my friend's 70-200 f4, but find that it is not bright enough. though you are shooting outdoors, there will be occasional times you will shoot indoors, that's when i find it quite limiting at a f/4. i haven't used the sigma version, but from reviews i have seen and heard, it seems quite a worthy subsitute.

 

[satay16]

btw, the sigma is 75SGD more than the EF 70-200f/4. so..... i strongly recommend the sigma.

 

[Gunbucker]

personally, i think you should go for the f/2.8 if you have the finanical power. i tried using my friend's 70-200 f4, but find that it is not bright enough. though you are shooting outdoors, there will be occasional times you will shoot indoors, that's when i find it quite limiting at a f/4. i haven't used the sigma version, but from reviews i have seen and heard, it seems quite a worthy subsitute.

For indoor shots, even a f/2.8 might be limiting, unless you intend to bump up the ISO all the way.

I'm pretty much in the same predicament, loving the lightweight freedom of the f/4 during the day, and lamenting the speed at dusk/indoors.

I'm seriously considering using "low light specialists" a.k.a primes for the job. A 85mm f/1.8 is looking awfully good, especially on the 1.6x sensor (136mm focal length).

 

[SimonKing]

For indoor shots, even a f/2.8 might be limiting, unless you intend to bump up the ISO all the way.

I'm pretty much in the same predicament, loving the lightweight freedom of the f/4 during the day, and lamenting the speed at dusk/indoors.

I'm seriously considering using "low light specialists" a.k.a primes for the job. A 85mm f/1.8 is looking awfully good, especially on the 1.6x sensor (136mm focal length).

True,i personally find that f/2.8 would be kinda limiting in low light situation too.I would prefer to use a large aperture prime to do the job in low light.Although i have to use my feet to do the "zooming" but at least i know i can be fast enough to capture the shot.I got the f/4 and i never expect myself to use this lens for indoors in the first place.

 

[satay16]

but since thread starter states that he is mainly shooting outdoors, i think the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 should be enough. the bigger aperture than the f/4 will provide some convience when shooting indoors, though doesn't eliminate it. primes will have bigger aperture, but dun think he needs it outdoors.

 

[SimonKing]

Hi Bro,

There is no point asking around than actual testing/viewing the lens by yourself.

Come and join us for the next CanonGraphers outing and test the lens yourself to see whether you like the weight, AF speed, quality and so for.

Too bad you missed out our recent Macro shoot outing. As you can see for the above photo, EF 135mm f2L and EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS and non IS as well as EF 70-200 f4L were all present.

Like what USM said,it's better to test out the lens yourself.

 

[JediForce4ever]

wah!! must go ar!!!

I already ask u to go....cheh

 

[JW73]

A 70-200mmf4 is denifinately a steal considering it's weight, price and picture quality when used properly.

I used it with a 10D before and the AF is very postive even in low light. Putting on a 1.4x will not affect the AF speed too.

Although I sold it few months ago to finance a 400mmf5.6, I will be getting back this lens soon. The handholding is really great due to it;s size and diameter.

But if a f2,8 is critical for u. Then this lens will not be suitable.

James

 

[championboxer]

have a sigma 70-200mm 2.8 lens...
using that to shoot concerts... low lights and i have to usually shoot from a distance...
usually i do put on a TC as well...

my weakness - due to low light.. i do not have sharp images.. maybe because of handshake.. and probably the AF?

would a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 be much of a difference?

I know the IS version may help but its also quite heavy right?

awaiting yr opinions....

 

[Gunbucker]

have a sigma 70-200mm 2.8 lens...
using that to shoot concerts... low lights and i have to usually shoot from a distance...
usually i do put on a TC as well...

my weakness - due to low light.. i do not have sharp images.. maybe because of handshake.. and probably the AF?

would a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 be much of a difference?

I know the IS version may help but its also quite heavy right?

awaiting yr opinions....

Sounds like you'll benefit from the IS version of the 70-200mm. Have you considered the 135mm f/2L?

 

[championboxer]

i do believe the IS will help...
have not personally tried the IS functions under low light ...

the 135mm is also an option... just that its a prime and the zoom functionality will be stripped...

hee... guess u can't havethe best of both worlds

 

[NorthernLights]

Sounds like you'll benefit from the IS version of the 70-200mm. Have you considered the 135mm f/2L?

Too long. At f2, no IS, your shutter speed must be at least 1/160s for a sharp image.

Comparatively, an 85 f1.2L would just need 1/80s shutter and is 1 and 2/3 stops brighter than the 135f2, and is 2 and 2/3 stops brighter than the f2.8.

Better bokeh too..:bsmilie:

 

[sehsuan]

Just a personal note - having the 70-200, IS version is good because it's weather-resistant. I got caught in heavy rain recently, and together with my camera body, there was no water seepage. The other versions from Canon are not weather sealed.