Request for Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS owners only.

[roanjohn]

Please.......I would like to see a picutre of this lens with the following criteria:

1. Attached to the camera.
2. A side by side comparison to the 70-200 f4 L (with and without the hood).
3. A person handholding the lens.

Thanks everybody..............I've been eyeing this lens for a while and just need to know a few more things before I go over the edge.

Oh..........and if nobody minds..........

4. A pic from this lens at 2.8.

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Again.........thanks for the efforts.

Ro1

[defordphoto]

At $125 an hour and a 4 hour minimum, that'll run you $500.

;)

But, seriously, if you search the Net, even just a little, you'll find gobs of reviews, photos, sample photos and photos of cameras attached to said lens, all over the place. DPReview, Fred Miranda to name a couple...

This is Canon's best zoom lens. No need to fret getting this one. It's sharp enough to make you bleed and yes, it does look cool too. ;)

[khkohl]

It's an awesome lens! Don't hesitate to buy it if you can afford it.

[PekkaM]

I have the non IS version which is almost the same size. At first when I bought it I thought: "What have I done, I can never go out in public with that monster!!!".

It doesn't seem that big to me anymore and now it's my walkaround lens. Still all the people who see it first time are amazed by it's size (I'm still talking about a lens here :lol:).

[GenEOS]

Like I told a guy up here at work...Buy it, if you don't like it, you will be able to sell it and only loose about the cost of renting one for the weekend...

This is my altime favorite lens and it stays on the Mark II as my standard carry lens. The other lens in the bag is the 16-35. These two lenses are the workhorses for most media photogs.

[Haifidelity]

http://hza.pgbco.com/images/temp_70-200.jpg

It's the NON-IS version, but the dimensions are the same. Mounted on 10D w/Grip.

The 70-200 F/4.0 is a toy compared to the f/2.8...that said, the F/4.0 is STILL a big lens.[/img]

[roanjohn]

It's the NON-IS version, but the dimensions are the same. Mounted on 10D w/Grip.

The 70-200 F/4.0 is a toy compared to the f/2.8...that said, the F/4.0 is STILL a big lens.[/img]

Thanks Haifidelity........

That lens is HUGE!!!

I really wonder if I can carry this lens around all day without a tripod??

Ro1

[KennyG]

It isn't huge. I carry one all day slung over one shoulder and a monopod with a 1D and 300mm IS over the other. You certainly don't need a tripod with it, or a monopod for that matter. The photograph makes it look worse than it is due to the perspective. Also, you can reverse the hood making it a lot shorter (no lighter, just shorter).

[timmyquest]

I saw one last week at my graduation. It really isnt all that big, i cant say anything about weight, but it is a lens that you shouldnt have nay problems carrying around.

[roanjohn]

Okay.............I think I'm definitely buying it...............

in 2 months hopefully.

Ro1

[timmyquest]

Okay.............I think I'm definitely buying it...............

in 2 months hopefully.

Ro1


I remember being at that stage, that was 5 months ago :lol:

Good luck, hopefully better hten mine :-)

[Haifidelity]

Huge is a relative term. I know you're a professional photog. Kenny, so i'm sure your big primes make this puppy look like..well, a puppy, but for the majority of people out there, this is a big lens.

It has percievably become smaller to me over the time i've had it, as has my 55" HDTV, but in absolute terms, it is fairly large.

HOWEVER:

In terms of weight, it isn't that big of a deal and I usually have no problem carrying it all day.

[slin100]

Check out this thread (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/101588/0). It has comparison shots of the 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4. It also has the 85/1.8 and the 400/2.8, for grins!

[roanjohn]

Check out this thread (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/101588/0). It has comparison shots of the 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4. It also has the 85/1.8 and the 400/2.8, for grins!

Thanks..........I think that pretty much answered all my questions.

Ro1

[sGu]

i don't have any pictures of handheld or attached to the camera body, but i do have shots with this lens, there u go

http://Gu.smugmug.com/gallery/133947/18/5265075

somehow i couldn't get the direct link off my gallery, but the last one is shot on this lens

[ilya]

Here you go ~

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4089341&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

8)

[drisley]

sGu, wow, that picture of the girl beside the car is fantastic! It looks like she's floating in air.

BTW, what calculations are you using to "guess" the 35mm equivalent focal length, because you are WAY off! :lol:
Just multiply the actual focal length by 1.6.
So, if the shot is 200mm, the 35mm equivalent is 320mm.

[sGu]

i didn't calculate the focal length, that's 200mm at 1.6x which is 320mm, simply because i was sitting further back on the stand and that's the only way i could get that pic, it's shame that seats r pre-allocated, otherwise i'd fight my way thru to the front row.

there r more live show pics which i yet to upload them, once i've done that, i'll post links here.

if u like the pics or u have any comments, feel free to pour them out :D

[drisley]

Oh, ok.
When you click on the photo details, it gives actual length, and 35mm equivalent with a (guess) comment. And the 35mm equiv is way off.

Btw, was that girl jumping out of the car or what?

[sGu]

yup, she just jumped out from the side and i happened to press my shutter before she landed