Considering the 70-200 f4 is for my next lens
- Thread starter KKCFamilyman
- Start date
- Status
Thanks I am really glad I did ended up with it for $1049 out the door so feel real good about my purchase till I know how much I use this range.
Upvote
0
I have been shooting all weekend with this lens and wish indoors I had the 2.8 but you still have to introduce flash or push you ISo to achieve reasonable shutter speeds. I am wondering if the extra stop is worth $1,000 more and double the weight for indoor shots or should I save that for the upcoming 24-70 ii release which is a much more used focal range for me? I do hate only f4 but 2.8 is not that much faster when under tungsten lighting. Yeah the bokeh seems nicer but I just have a hard time with the weight of that lens. How do you over come it?
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
Don't forget ab and back exercises. That thing can seriously hurt your spine if you sling it on your neck the whole day. ;D
But seriously, only you can decide if what you'll get from the 2.8 is worth an extra grand. Probably yes if you're shooting professionally. Or if you have the money for it, does it really matter if it's worth it? Otherwise there's no need to get it, it's not as if it will make a night and day difference to your photos.
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
I use a BR strap. If you think the weight of the f/2.8 will be too much for you, then you should stay with the f/4.
f/2.8 is only one stop faster. Are you going to be happy with the IQ if you halve the ISO? More likely, you should avoid the f/2.8 zooms if you're trying to take indoor photos without flash. f/2.8 is not fast enough. You need f/1.2 or f/1.4, which has a 3+ advantage compared to the f/4, which becomes significant. The DOF also gets a lot thinner, so that is the trade off. So my suggestion is to keep the 70-200 f/4 and thinking about adding a high speed prime (i.e. 35, 50 or 85) for indoor use for single subjects. For multiple subjects or for deeper DOF, you're going to need a flash regardless.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
ivansebastian said:I used to have 70-200 f/4 IS, but honestly it didn't fit me well. Specially if you taking a lot of candid and portrait, I would say use 70-200 f/2.8 will serve your need much better. Now I use 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and I love this lens (except for the weight, after I carrying it around for a while)
I took the same route. I had the 70-200 f4 before- great lens, but I was pushing it to its limits for indoor events when I needed longer reach, so I saved up and bought the f2.8 version. It opened up many shots for me that just were not possible with the f4 lens- but at the same time, the extra size and weight is a bear.
It depends on what you shoot though. The OP mentioned tracking kids- I suppose with the FF 5D3 you could push the ISO upwards of 6400 without taking too much of a hit in quality, so the f4 version shouldn't be a problem. There's the (much!) lighter weight and $$ savings to consider. Since I have a 1.6x 60D, I needed the 2.8 since I can't reasonably push ISO higher than 3200 on it.
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:
+1 on the strap. I have the BlackRapid RS-4 and my 5D2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L II hangs on there without any of the back or shoulder pain I used to get even with lighter lenses on a neck strap.
I also agree with the aperture comment. If f/4 is not fast enough with the amazing low-light capabilities of the 5D3, one extra stop is probably not going to cut it. I don't have any experience with the fast primes others have mentioned so I can't really add anything there; I don't take many portraits and I have the 50 f/1.4 and 100 f/2 for low light when I need them.
Upvote
0
E
earwaxxer
Guest
I have owned the 70-200 f4 form many years though several DSLR bodies. Part of me want to not like it so I can get something else, but its such a great performer for the price and weight. One thing I can say is that my manual focus ring is not working right. There is some slack in its operation which pretty much makes it unusable. Not a biggie because I use auto focus 99.9% of the time. Its a great outdoor sports lens. Pretty sharp even at f4. The new f2.8L is very good though. When I bought the f4, it was a sharper lens then the first generation f2.8.
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
As others have mentioned. 2.8 really isn't fast enough to stop action in low light especially with kids IMO. I have the 70-200 f4 is as well and I wouldn't trade it for the 2.8 is due to weight and no real world image quality differences (I guess if you like to pixel peep there may be some differences). With the 5diii you should be able to push ISO quite a bit and not have to worry about the f4. In fact the main reason I'm considering saving for a 5diii vs picking up a 5dii right now is the extra stop or so in ISO you can push it vs the later. That would mean I probably wouldn't feel the need to possibly replace the f4 zoom with a 2.8. If you have money to burn than by all means take back the f4 and buy the 2.8, but I think you'd be better served by one of the L primes like the 24, 35, 50, 85, or 135. Since your problem is indoors then the 135 and 85 may be a bit long, and the 24 maybe a bit short, so look to the 35 or 50. If you don't want to spend that much the 50 1.4 or 1.8 are good options as is the 28 1.8 and 35 2.0. You'll find obvious build quality trade offs but since you're not making money at this just buy what fits the budget and your needs at the time.
Upvote
0
Thanks everyone again. I do agree that this will cover my immediate needs for reach beyond 105 mm. It will give me a budget toward a L prime. Or the 24-70 ii if it ends up great. I also like the weight. The Iq is sharp wide open on my copy. I also want the speed lite 600ex to add for low light and I think that will be a better combo than the 2.8 version. I do have the 50mm 1.4. I think I will go for 35mm for my next prime. What is there for beyond 200mm? That's semi affordable?
Upvote
0
E
earwaxxer
Guest
Beyond 200, I would recommend the 400 f5.6L. I have had that lens for many years as well. Reasonable price. Nice build. Definitely need a monopod for weight and stability. I use this lens all the time! I love it. The bouka is fantastic. Great looking white lens as well. Built in hood.
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
I have a 70-200 F4 IS. Its an excellent lens. There are advantages to the f2.8, however for budget reasons and the fact that the F4 is half the weight and size it makes it a great walkaround lens.
I wouldn't wait. If canon comes out with something better in the next quarter or 5 years that you would rather have then you can always sell this lens. Canon Glass holds a lot of value!
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
That's the range where things get interesting. Canon options include using the 1.4x, 70-300L and 100-400L. You might want to try the 1.4x first and see if that is sufficient. With a 70-200, the 70-300 is not as good a choice because so much of the range overlaps. So, try the extender first, then the 100-400. Beyond that, it gets heavy and expensive.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
