Guys, I don’t know how about all of you. But Pro’s were not that much excited by the new 70-200. I’m working in a Hotel in Vancouver, where media guys were staying while during Olympics. Don’t know if the last names are necessarily, however the journalists from EPA and LA Times were saying there’s no real reason to pay $500.00 extra… By the way the majority of them don’t even use the IS-mode while shooting sports, so the new IS is useless for Pro-photographers. I have 70-200 f/2.8 IS myself – totally happy with the quality of the pics. Yes, it’s not that sharp @200mm, but oh wow… Paying 500.00 extra to get sharpness @ it’s max mm-range – is it really worthy?!
Stoneking on
maybe the new 70-200 is marketed for the well-healed amateur and wedding photographer. i see more people everyday with a dslr around their neck. if it was about the money i would buy a tamaron.
25 Comments
yeah finally this lens is awesome!!
Guys, I don’t know how about all of you. But Pro’s were not that much excited by the new 70-200.
I’m working in a Hotel in Vancouver, where media guys were staying while during Olympics. Don’t know if the last names are necessarily, however the journalists from EPA and LA Times were saying there’s no real reason to pay $500.00 extra… By the way the majority of them don’t even use the IS-mode while shooting sports, so the new IS is useless for Pro-photographers.
I have 70-200 f/2.8 IS myself – totally happy with the quality of the pics. Yes, it’s not that sharp @200mm, but oh wow… Paying 500.00 extra to get sharpness @ it’s max mm-range – is it really worthy?!
maybe the new 70-200 is marketed for the well-healed amateur and wedding photographer. i see more people everyday with a dslr around their neck. if it was about the money i would buy a tamaron.
I have to buy this lens !!
It is to me (I own the new one and it matches pretty well my 200 2.8L II prime and even the 100 2.8L IS!).
IMHO it’s worth the extra $500.