The Great Big White

[ilya]

So I got the 70-200 F2.8L IS yesterday. A few first impressions, and then I have to get back to the caressing and sweet talk (both Lens and Wife).

Its a formidable heavy lens. I've never owned something as bulky as this, so for you guys with the 500mms this will seem trivial, but to us "real-lens virgins", its quite a change.

Image Stabilizer - this works incredibly well. Hard to see how one can hand-hold a 3.5lb lens plus camera plus 420EX and take as good as shots as thing thing has produced. The IS is quiet, and effective. However, I only had time to test it indoors at night. Turning up the ISO to 400 / 800, at 2.8 it takes beautiful hand-held shots in crappy light. That's amazing. I think the extra $500 you pay for IS is probably worth it - however, I have not tried the non-IS version, so can't say.

Its sharp. I cut myself on some of the pics. Colors come out sooo nice. Seems also like its a bit more forgiving for operator error.

Its smooth and its fast. I went back and forth between the 70-200 and my 75-300IS and it is literally going from a broke-down 1966 VW bug to an SLK Mercedes. The 75-300 is pretty good lens optically, but man it makes a lot of noise, and it twists and turns and creeps and hunts. The big white one is almost silent, fast and gives a feel of power.

It is able to maintain the 2.8 aperture through the entire zoom range. That's a nice bonus.

Some other niceties - full time manual focus, non-rotating elements, 2 types of IS, comes with a nice pouch, lens hood and tripod ring.

I'll post something soon

Yay me.

Ilya

PS - Many questions have been asked "Is the 70-200 2.8L worth the money". My answer is that I'll get back to you because I haven't taken it outside yet. So far so good.

[mjordan]

You can't take it out side or you void the warrenty... unless you wrap it up in a fur coat, hat and mitten. ;D


I have both the 70-200 4.0 and 70-200 2.8 IS and yes, it's a bit more weight, but not that bad. My first real test after I got it was 9 days shooting a big dog show. It was cold and windy and rainy (and yes, I got mine wet, but it didn't get soaked and I dried it off constantly) for part of the days and then too hot the last couple of days. I was constantly on the move as I looked for good shots. I usually kept my backup lens (I had just got a 24-70 2.8L as well) in my bag that was over my shoulder, but I used that neat lens bag. I put it on my belt and kept which ever lens I wasn't using in it, which took a lot of weight off my shoulder but still allowed me to use the bag to rest my left elbow on. So weight wise, it wasn't too bad and I wasn't feeling any worse for wear after 9 days (other than the normal aches and pains and being tired from driving 3 days out, 3 days back and staying in a 24' travel trailer the whole 2 weeks with 7 dogs and a wife).

But it took great pictures. Actually both the 70-200 2.8L IS and 24-70 2.8L took great pictures. From night time to full sun light. I've got shots where you can see the water flying as the dogs ran agility in the rain.

You are going to love it. My only regret is that now it's our rainy season here in the Northwest, all of the stuff I shoot the most of have stopped for the season. I'm waiting for our break in the weather that we usually get in mid winter so I can get out and get pictures of Mt. Hood, Sisters and Mt. Bachlor. We are getting a lot of snow up there right now and I can't wait.

Mike

[ilya]

Ok, another gratuitous kid shot. I call this "Static Electricity". Rulers come a bit later.

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1961164&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1/

This was taken with the white one @ 200mm at 1/200 / F5.6 with a 420EX. Just a little touch-up in PS CS. Not raw.

======

Mike - nice dogs the bouviers. I used to have a riezen schnauzer, I think they are relatives. (Now a boxer).

The day job prevents me from having daylight with the lens. I'm not bothered, will wait till weekend.

[GenEOS]

Welcome to the brotherhood.

[nosquare2003]

Hi ilya

Did you shoot @200mm? With the crop factor, it is 320mm - and it would be a long distance for the portrait. Hey, don't put any more photos taken by the big white (even with rulers shot). I will go bankrupt then. (In fact, I can't even afford the weight...)

[Belmondo]

How'd you get his hair to do that? Show him the receipt for the lens?

[ilya]

nosquare2003 wrote:
Hi ilya

Did you shoot @200mm? With the crop factor, it is 320mm - and it would be a long distance for the portrait. Hey, don't put any more photos taken by the big white (even with rulers shot). I will go bankrupt then. (In fact, I can't even afford the weight...)

Aha, 320mm. Clear across the room. I understand, and will cut down on the photo posts :)

[ilya]

belmondo wrote:
How'd you get his hair to do that? Show him the receipt for the lens?

Absolutely. :D

Had to change a diaper right away as well.

[mebow]

Congrats ! That is a nice lens and yes it does 'feel great' when you are used to others.

Now its time to try out the 400MM F2.8L IS. Another nice piece of hardware.

good luck.

mike

[mjordan]

ilya wrote:
Ok, another gratuitous kid shot. I call this "Static Electricity". Rulers come a bit later.


======

Mike - nice dogs the bouviers. I used to have a riezen schnauzer, I think they are relatives. (Now a boxer).

The day job prevents me from having daylight with the lens. I'm not bothered, will wait till weekend.

Thanks. We often get asked if our dogs are giant Schnauzers, giant Scottie dogs, or small black bears. LOL! Our neighbors behind us raise standard Schnauzers. If our rain will let up before summer comes back in July, we will get our dogs back out to pull our sled dog training cart. They wore out the disc brake last spring and I need to get that replaced as well. They don't pull fast like the Northern breeds, but they will pull you up the side of a mountain... with brakes locked. LOL!

That is an excellent picture of the kid. With that much static buildup you probably could have stuck him up on the wall like you can a balloon when you rub it against rabbit fur. Now that would have been a great picture. ;D

Mike

[defordphoto]

Ilya: Yes, the 70-200 is a mighty lens and its weight proves it. You'll get used to it. Come on out to the great Northwest and shoot 7-8 hours of continuous Jet Sprint Boat racing and then we'll talk! Hehe...

Great shot of your boy!!! That's awesome! Colors, contrast, sharpness that causes bleeding if you're not careful (I borrwed that one from you, thanks).

Yes folks! It's an L!

And just wait until you take it outside! There's a world of wow-factor out there waiting for you with this finest of the finest lenses. It's truly an incredible piece of work.

I'm sure your excitement and posting of photos will entice many to jump off the cliff into L-land and take the plunge. I know I sold at least 4 100-400's when I was posting my race photos and at least 2 70-200's with my latest Jet Sprint photos.

Of course, that's what Canon hired us for right?

[ilya]

Cheers Jim.

That reminds me //jots down ... send invoice to Canon//

Its truly a great lens. No regrets.



I think the extra $500 you pay for IS is probably worth it - however, I have not tried the non-IS version, so can't say. DUH!! Just turn the IS off idiot - its about 3 stops all else considered equal. What's the going rate per stop - $165 sounds about right :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

ilya wrote:
So I got the 70-200 F2.8L IS yesterday...

Its a formidable heavy lens. I've never owned something as bulky as this, so for you guys with the 500mms this will seem trivial, but to us "real-lens virgins", its quite a change....


*Cough,.. cough* (pansy!) *cough*

:)

[ilya]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:

*Cough,.. cough* (pansy!) *cough*

:)




Man, that just came out of nowhere. //reeling from da blows//

Just for that, I stoled your thing. My understanding that its like your mojo ~~~

http://home.comcast.net/~icantor/humor.gif

[Derek Smith]

Hey ilya,

Great shot, just out of interest, where did you throw the light from the 420 - on the ceiling?
That lighting really is very good.

Derek

[Erin]

IN all reality, its just another lens, a pretty good pro one tho!

[Canuck]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
ilya wrote:
So I got the 70-200 F2.8L IS yesterday...

Its a formidable heavy lens. I've never owned something as bulky as this, so for you guys with the 500mms this will seem trivial, but to us "real-lens virgins", its quite a change....


*Cough,.. cough* (pansy!) *cough*

:)




CDS,
I see you have outdone my beast by about a pound and a half! The 120-300 is 92oz and your bigger beast, 500 mm prime, is 110 oz. Was nice whilst it lasted. Did you get the optional trailer with it to hitch onto a truck to carry (or lug for that matter) it? Hmmm...what to get next?? I know the Canon 1200mm L lens! Not! That one cost like $40K. Speaking of which, that 1200mm is a 1920mm equivilent on the 10D! Talk about some wicked astrophotography! Btw, it weights 36 lbs. There used to be a reiew of it, but it has since been taken off. The review said that it was an awesome, but exorbitantly expensive for the individual. You can say that again!

[ilya]

Derek Smith wrote:
Hey ilya,

Great shot, just out of interest, where did you throw the light from the 420 - on the ceiling?
That lighting really is very good.

Derek

Thanks Derek, yes, bounced off a white ceiling. No diffuser, no compensation. Came out better then I thought it would. Can't be the operator, so I figured must be the Great White.

Ilya