Which 70-200L to get?

[toxicboy]

Review here:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_70-300_vc_review.html

 

[lchoong78]

to me F2.8 really can produce nice bokeh especially when i shoot portrait. but the problem is very heavy.
F4 is not bad in term of quality and weight lighter then F2.8. the problem is cant produce nice bokeh as compare with F2.8.

Therefore im wondering why CANON can't produce F2.8 with reduce the weight? I dun mind to pay more if the weight is ligther.

 

[tecnica]

to me F2.8 really can produce nice bokeh especially when i shoot portrait. but the problem is very heavy.
F4 is not bad in term of quality and weight lighter then F2.8. the problem is cant produce nice bokeh as compare with F2.8.

Therefore im wondering why CANON can't produce F2.8 with reduce the weight? I dun mind to pay more if the weight is ligther.

just take a look at the schematics, how do you expect it to be light?

 

[niccon2]

just take a look at the schematics, how do you expect it to be light?

can change all lens & body material to engineering plastic or not? :bsmilie:

 

[Tucksoon]

can change all lens & body material to engineering plastic or not? :bsmilie:

Then it will lose its 'L' build quality

 

[nathaniel]

to me F2.8 really can produce nice bokeh especially when i shoot portrait. but the problem is very heavy.
F4 is not bad in term of quality and weight lighter then F2.8. the problem is cant produce nice bokeh as compare with F2.8.

Therefore im wondering why CANON can't produce F2.8 with reduce the weight? I dun mind to pay more if the weight is ligther.

they could if the made an EF-S version. but it seems they don't really want to.

 

[niccon2]

they could if the made an EF-S version. but it seems they don't really want to.

tokina 50-135 f2.8 was quite good & light but lack IS & USM

 

[nathaniel]

tokina 50-135 f2.8 was quite good & light but lack IS & USM

Sigma has a 50-150/2.8 OS announced, but not yet available in stores.

 

[BraveHart]

Therefore im wondering why CANON can't produce F2.8 with reduce the weight? I dun mind to pay more if the weight is ligther.

I think they can probably shave off a 100-200g more using titanium alloy casings; but will you want to pay 1k more for that? Also heavy is relative - try working out with some dumbells (biceps curls and shoulder press) for a month and then hold the 70-200/2.8 again

 

[2evans]

I think they can probably shave off a 100-200g more using titanium alloy casings; but will you want to pay 1k more for that? Also heavy is relative - try working out with some dumbells (biceps curls and shoulder press) for a month and then hold the 70-200/2.8 again

You can always consider doing curls with the 70-200 2.8. I'm sure Canon considers it as a bonus feature.

 

[BraveHart]

You can always consider doing curls with the 70-200 2.8. I'm sure Canon considers it as a bonus feature.

Eh...the lens is too light for effective workout lar haha

 

[pachero]

I tried the 70-200 f2.8L non IS recently.

I think it is a really excellent lens, especially when you are outdoor. I bumped up ISO when taking some indoor shots, and I will say the results are pretty good too.

I think if one can train up on hand holding techniques, this lens actually makes a very good choice. A used set cost slightly less than the f4 IS too...

 

[ang79]

Hi TS

Since u are worried about low light conditions, simply go for the 2.8 version. Preferable with IS as it's a heavy lens. Unless ur arm power is good.

I m a big fan of this kens. Took a photo with it....u can see below.

My 2c worth

 

[lchoong78]

just take a look at the schematics, how do you expect it to be light?

Thanks for the info, apologise that i really dun quite familiar/ understand with the schematics, Im just wondering whether the len (i.e. F2.8) can be lighther. ;p

Furthermore, I reliase that now a day photography is not mainly for man, more and more female friends around me are passion on the photography. We all know that some picture quality is needed a specific len in order to produce some specific effect. Just like 70-200L F2.8 vs 70-200L F4, if u like nice bokeh, then u just can't be missed this F2.8. Just see the sample of ang79 will know.

therefore, if the Canon can produce new 70-200 F2.8 and focus on the weight to make it suit for the girls, then i personally think it will be more benefited.:bsmilie:

can change all lens & body material to engineering plastic or not? :bsmilie:

if the outcome quality unchange, I dun mind plastic material.. haha

they could if the made an EF-S version. but it seems they don't really want to.

EF-S version, well they might do so for different market segment.

 

[Snips]

Birds 200mm too short even on cropped in general. Unless you are talking about big and slow birds.

Got money and muscle go for f2.8 mark II
Abit money no muscle go for f4 IS
No money abit of muscle maybe f2.8 non is?
No money no muscle go for f4 non is.

Otherwise consider 3rd party lenses.

Your best friend(s) is the SEARCH button, not us.

Just curious about all these shooting birds thing. Do you guys mean birds in flight or birds on trees? Or maybe both? I'm planning to get a tele for shooting stationery birds perching on trees etc.

Originally thought that max focal length of 200 on a crop body should be enough for my purposes, but all these talk about 200mm not being enough for birds is seriously confusing me.

Anyone wanna help out this newbie here?