« on: May 14, 2013, 04:19:19 PM »
Neuro, thanks for the quick and detailed reply. That's exactly what I needed to know - looks like it's eBay and RRS shopping time!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Just don't ask this same question when you ready for 24-70 f2.8 II. I'm sure you know what to do with your 24-105Funny you should say that - I actually have the original 24-70 f/2.8, and the 16-35 f/2.8 II. So far I'm hanging on to the old 24-70. The improvements from f/8-f/11 don't impress me enough to pay the price to upgrade - at least while it's that much. Besides, I have the 24 f/1.4 II, 50 f/1.2, and 85 f/1.2 II if I want to shoot anything wide open or anywhere near 2.8.
Doesn't matter as much since the 70d isn't out, we can't be sure of what it will or won't do. There will be a space for the 70d and there will be a 7d2 based on rumors. Depending on what you use it for, it may work out for you - but personally I sold my 7D and my EF-S lens to feed my 5d mk3 fund.Good call - I just sold my 7D - after getting my 5D MkIII, and having a 5D MkII as well, the 7D saw almost no action. And yes, I primarily shoot wildlife, so even the crop wasn't enough. The files are just so much better from the FF sensors, and the 5D MkIII AF and image quality is amazing!
I'm curious, just because I don't know any better, why those like Neuro, would take the 135 or 200 f/2 w/o IS at that focal length over something with it?Because with the 135mm you can get 1/200s at f/2 at ISO 1600 or less in just about any lighting, even indoors in poor lighting. I would be more leery of the 200mm because the non-IS model is a f/2.8. Ultimately they're both great lenses (the 135 and 100 macro) and unless you shoot indoor sports (and need f/2) or macro (and need true 1:1) or have unsteady hands (and need IS), you can't go wrong with either lens.
Sold mine and wish I had kept it. The 2.8II is fantastic, but heavy to carry.I think that sums up my decision. I'll keep it for now and see how much I use it over the next 3 months. If I don't use it, I'll sell it, but everyone's posts just made me realize how great it is to have a small telephoto lens, too. Thinking about it more, I often take it with me when I might need telephoto lengths, even if I'm just planning too shoot with my wider lenses (e.g. architectural work).
I guess I'm different from most of you. I have the F4. It's among the sharpest and most versatile lenses that I own and I see no reason to buy the 2.8. I love the lightness of the lens and it produces simply spectacular images.That's how I have felt for the last several years, but now I'm doing more photojournalism and sports work where the 135 f/2 isn't flexible enough (still love it though) if I'm stuck in one spot and the extra stop of light has become a necessity. The f/4 is ideal for just about anything else, and I have been very happy with it.