slclick said:
hollybush said:
vscd said:
I think a f4-Lens is ok for some people, let's say hobbyists, but most want the 70-200, simply to get a better depth of field and especially to use teleconverters like 1.4x or 2.0x.
Let's not say "hobbyists", because the lens is used by landscape photographers, including one I know of who does actually earn his living from landscape photography. As has already been said, it's a lighter lens to carry than an f/2.8. Landscape photographers usually shoot stopped down, many or most of them all the time.
I'm with you as there are many folks whom act as if all lenses should be fast, never used at narrower apertures and all that jazz.
It's not all portraits and shallow DoF guys.
It's not all about hiking for miles to shoot landscapes from tripods at narrow apertures, either. For many of us, it is about some combination of both.
The thing is, though, you can always stop down an f/2.8 lens to f/4, f/8, or f/11. You can't open up an f/4 lens to f/2.8 when you want/need to. That makes the f/2.8 lens more versatile.
The price you pay for that versatility is in size, weight, and cost.
It's up to each shooter to decide if the extra functionality of an f/2.8 lens versus an f/4 lens is worth those things.
It's up to each shooter to decide if adding a 70-200/4 for use when size/weight may be more important than maximum aperture to a kit that already contains a 70-200/2.8 is worth the cost.