70-200 II has me torn...

Stir Fry A Lot wrote in post #13263144
I saw her pics in the f4 archive thread. They came out great and she could probably gotten away with shooting at a quarter of the speed she used (1/800sec) and a much lower iso. I can't argue with the success of her shots however. The f4 is wonderful on high iso capable bodies and I have yet to feel limited by mine.

huntersdad wrote in post #13263098
FREEBIRD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post up a link to your flicker account so we can check them out. Of course, had you had the 2.8, you would have been shooting ISO 3200 on your 7D, which in my experience was very respectable.

Here's a link to a set I just uploaded on Flickr. It's just a few of them. I realize now I could have lowered my ISO but I was feeling the pressure. I was only allowed to photo first 3 songs, no flash, and security escorted the photographers out at the end of the 3rd song. Twelve minutes or so and not much time for chimping. I guess I wasn't expecting such good professional spotlights, the light kept changing, and I've never done a concert like this before. But I don't regret the high ISO, the 7D handled it well.

http://www.flickr.com …n/sets/72157627​918509350/

I find it difficult to go back to my 24-105 lens after getting my 70-200 2.8. I see a massive difference and try to make 70mm work when I need wider. If I have to, I'll switch.

But the issue here is that I limit myself due to my reliance on the technology. If I treat a lens as a lens and not the picture taker, then I'll improve my skills. I guess the point I'm making is, dont be dissapointed in the equipment you have, there is no perfect lens. They all have trade offs. As you might have told your wife many times 'its how you use it that counts.'

bobbyz wrote in post #13262192
You need to use the right lens for the right job. Can't expect 70-200mm to focus real close and shoot in small qtrs. And for family outing in the park, carry some small prime and stop complaining about weight of the zoom.

I spent two weeks in September on the Oregon coast (usually down on the beach), and planned to utilize my TSE 24 exclusively (because it was new, and has fantastic IQ).

Poor decision as it was often too wide for my preferred subjects. Fortunately I had the 24-105 in my bag, and switched. If I owned a 70-200 I would have made much better use of it than the TSE 24.

Looking at the OP's camera/lens list (and being subjective and non-critical), I would suggest that the 17-40 might have been suitable for "fall park family pics".

Glenn

my woman said the same thing... so i ditched my dslr setup and went mirrorless. Sold every canon lens but I couldnt let 70-200mk2 go. No way. Now I am slowly rebuying my dslr gear with zeiss glasses now.

Dont make the same mistake I did. I carry my m8 or nex 5n when I am with my girl, but when I am alone, I carry my dslr.

Hope this helps.

bentarrow wrote in post #13263956
my woman said the same thing... so i ditched my dslr setup and went mirrorless. Sold every canon lens but I couldnt let 70-200mk2 go. No way. Now I am slowly rebuying my dslr gear with zeiss glasses now.

Dont make the same mistake I did. I carry my m8 or nex 5n when I am with my girl, but when I am alone, I carry my dslr.

Hope this helps.

Shame on you.. ditch the girl not the gear

I hear ya man..

I agree

I have my money, my wife has hers, and we have ours. I don't tell her what to do with her money, she doesn't tell me what to do with mine. On the "ours", we decide. Of course I, often, surprise her with a gift.

A girlfriend telling me how to spend my money. Not a chance.

your wife must make good money if you guys keep the bank account separate.

bohdank wrote in post #13270568
I agree

I have my money, my wife has hers, and we have ours. I don't tell her what to do with her money, she doesn't tell me what to do with mine. On the "ours", we decide. Of course I, often, surprise her with a gift.

A girlfriend telling me how to spend my money. Not a chance.

Rent the 300L or 400L for a weekend and then ask your wife if she still thinks the 70-200 is big.

bentarrow wrote in post #13276979
your wife must make good money if you guys keep the bank account separate.

Actually not. She's a student at the moment and works sporadically. The one joint account is used for common purchases.

I see no reason why her shoes, for example, should be sourced from "our" money or would need my approval, or vice versa.

The system works exceptionally well, in my experience, since we have the freedom to spend as we wish from our personal accounts. Having only joint accounts is pure madness, imho. Everyone needs a certain level of financial independence.

Because of her current status, the joint account is funded more by me than by her but the proportion has been agreed upon and will change next year, when she finishes school.

theextremist04 wrote in post #13277235
Rent the 300L or 400L for a weekend and then ask your wife if she still thinks the 70-200 is big.

Ha ha, good idea! My mistake was getting her too used to nifty fifty several months ago. To her, even the 17-40 is called "the big lens".

BTW, the 70-200 is not going anywhere. My solution is to send her up to our weight room and build up those arms.

jpjaybird2011 wrote in post #13262006
I will start off by saying that I love what my 70-200 II puts out image-wise. But using it this weekend for some fall park family pics was met with some frustration that has been occupying my thoughts today. My wife continuously complains about its weight, size, etc and can't understand how the high image quality that the lens is capable of is enough to offset those physical factors (she used the word "bazooka"). I try to tune out its bulk + weight when using it but still cannot deny that it is pretty obtrusive at times.

You should have bought the 70-200mm f/4 ..... less weight and less money.

jpjaybird2011 wrote in post #13278605
Ha ha, good idea! My mistake was getting her too used to nifty fifty several months ago. To her, even the 17-40 is called "the big lens".

BTW, the 70-200 is not going anywhere. My solution is to send her up to our weight room and build up those arms.

Classic

No matter how good the 70-200L II is, you can run into trouble when you try to use it as your only general / walkaround lens. I'd definitely bring the 17-40 if in that situation again, and consider the 24-105 for the future if you don't like the gap between 40mm and 70mm.

Be careful. I purchased the 70-200 II in March and thought it was too heavy so I sold it in July. I then purchased the 70-300L which is a fantastic lens. Unfortunately I missed the Excellent IQ and lower light capabilites of the 70-200II so I sold a bunch of stuff from my other hobby and got another one for a higher price than the first one I purchased.

Now I use the 70-300L when I go hiking and the 70-200L II when I go to the park with the family or kid's concerts etc.

She began to know the size and weight of shot is holding me back. This theme really tell my 70-200 F4L more than 2.8 second is to keep the story. Now I will speak for 24-7024-105 ..