Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 3:28 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:37 am 
Well i would have thought you'd get 2-3 stops max out of a monopod, but just remeber that the Sigma is under half the price of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I think i can live with no IS and a monopod if it means a lens for half the price. Anyway if you want to discuss this further, you should start a new thread in the tripods section.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:09 am 
Here's a good thread on our own forum comparing VR/IS vs a Monopod. http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1398


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:58 am 
As a student, it's hard to get money to buy Lenses. However, I was lucky enough to be in a school which uses canon stuff. Thus, I managed to get loans on my school's 70-200 f2.8. Although it had a fantastic bokeh, I would not buy the 2.8 version, due to its weight. I was at the recent National Day Parade rehearsal, with the borrowed 70-200 f2.8. My hands were aching after 20minutes of free hand shooting! Which made me decide on the f4 version due to its lighter weight. I haven't thought about IS yet.. Also, should i need the f-stops of 2.8, I have my 100mm Macro to cover the low aperture.

Canon EOS 50D | EF-S 17-85 IS USM | EF 50mm f1.8 | EF 100mm Macro | 580EX II | BG E2N

www.flickr.com/photos/p3n9u1n


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 599
Location: Netherlands
I have bought the 2.8 non-IS, because it was just that much cheaper than the IS version. The choice was always between the 2.8 and the 2.8 IS because i loooove bokeh. Ideally of course I'd want the IS, you can always turn it off if you want. If I was loaded I'd swap the lens, but this one produces very nice images too. Te weight is not really an issue for my in terms of muscle-ache, but it does make you want IS just that little more. A heavy lens is more difficult to keep still after all. It's not a matter of big concern, there are a lot of other things I could spend my money on before switching the lens for its IS brother.


Just my 2 cents.

_________________
flickr
Canon 5D + 17-40 F4L + 50 F1.4 + 70-200 F2.8L
Velbon Sherpa 200R


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:18 pm 
Got to this thread a bit late but I own the 70-200L F4 IS and it is awesome!

I opted for the F4 IS version because the 2.8 weighs the proverbial ton and my primary use is out and about in the countryside. I do not want to lug a great weight around for many hours – photography is meant to be pleasurable after all.

Another point to bear in mind is would you actually use F2.8? Most of my shots require depth of field so I generally start at F8 so I would be buying a lot of class for nothing.

One final point. I have the Canon 1.4 teleconverter which turns the lens into a great semi macro. OK your not getting super close with this combo but if you want to capture a butterfly or dragonfly the 100mm is just no good because you have to get to close to the subject – the shot below was taken just over a metre away so the wildlife do not get to worried.



Image


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:11 am 
I just thought i'd point out here, that i have a 70-200 f/2.8 (Sigma One, cause i'm a student :wink: ) and it's not that heavy at all, i have never once thought about the weight, so if your wondering which lens to go for between the 2.8 and the 4, don't let the weight be a deciding factor, unless your very weak!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:59 pm 
podgeorge wrote:
I just thought i'd point out here, that i have a 70-200 f/2.8 (Sigma One, cause i'm a student :wink: ) and it's not that heavy at all, i have never once thought about the weight, so if your wondering which lens to go for between the 2.8 and the 4, don't let the weight be a deciding factor, unless your very weak!



Machismo aside at 1570g the F2.8 IS weighs considerably more than the F4's weight of 760g.

As I said in my comments, if you intend to use it for extended periods such as all day in the forests/hills I think most people would notice the difference but then again I may just be a very weak tree surgeon!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:03 am
Posts: 854
Location: Paris, London
I bought the 2.8 IS version as I need it for weddings, indoor receptions etc, so I wanted it to be as fast as possible. The weight is not an issue for me, though I do agree it is a heavy lens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:15 am 
I bought mine mainly for Sharper Photograph's when I go our Photographing Trains. (Nothing less) I bought my Lens for $600 Dollars at B&H Photo. And I love this L Lens. It hardly ever comes off my Camera. This Lens means more to me than anything that I have ever owned. The good thing is. If the Camera where to ever stop working. I can always buy another Camera and still use this Lens.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:37 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hi Allan, as a slightly off-topic plug, don't forget you can support us by shopping at B&H via our partner stores page!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: 70-200
PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:44 am 
First thing I personally feel IS Technology is slightly overrated. It will not function as you may thing, a few stops is not as much as you may hope for. It is a lot less compensating but works very, very well.

I shoot in studio, along with portraits out doors with strobes, so I do not need the IS or the extra stops. I like the F/4 version because the contrast is so so good.

The price is unbeatable for the F/4 version, You can get this version if you like and you can always upgrade to the next if you feel it is inadequate; the resale value is great on this lenses. The focal length is tight on this lens so you will need some room to work it, but it works superb as a portrait lens.

Lastly these are all tools and they all work flawlessly. Budget and functionality will decide. I will say be true to yourself, and try to focus on what you need and not what you can get.

www.lawrencejamesphotography.com


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:07 pm 
I have to make a decision between the 70-200 f/4 and 70-200mm f/4 IS.

I like to photograph landscapes mostly which i would be using f/8 - f/14 (guesstimate). I have a nice tripod. And i have a prime lens for low light.

And suggestions between those two? besides $600 in price.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: go for the IS
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:06 am
Posts: 69
Location: Minnesota, USA
If you are considering the IS in spite of the cost, that tells me you can probably stretch to get one.

That said, I opted for the "state of the art" version even though I have a decent tripod and use it fairly often for landscapes and long exposures.

The nice thing about the IS is when you are not set-up on a tripod, or don't happen to have one with you...you can still pull off shots like this:


Image


best of luck with your decision!



Image

_________________
Image
Canon 5D2 | BG-E6 Battery Grip | Canon XSi/450D | BG-E5 Battery Grip | Canon EF 17-40 f/4L | Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS | Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II | Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS | Manfrotto 055XPROB | Manfrotto 488RC2

Flickr <--Comments/Favorites welcomed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8049
Location: UK
I would have thought flying birds is one situation where IS doesn't matter so much. You'll need a fast shutter to freeze the motion. IS really comes in when you want to use longer shutter times risking camera shake.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D2, 7D1, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 10-18, 15-85
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 50/1.4A, 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS
Compacts: Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:13 am
Posts: 181
Location: Dunedin / Gisborne NZ
Bought the 70-200 f4 IS. Thought strongly about the 2.8 IS but the price put me off. Between the f4 IS and 2.8 non IS I decided that IS is the way to go.

_________________
Justin
Canon 50D
EF 50mm f1.8, 70-200mm f4L IS USM, 18-55mm IS
430EX speedlight
Photoshop CS4


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group