nordstern1 Goldmember  1,303 posts Joined Nov 2007 More info | Dec 13, 2007 02:34 | #1 hello! JOE
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Chandler. Goldmember  2,784 posts Likes: 4 Joined Dec 2006 Location: Issaquah More info | Dec 13, 2007 02:40 | #2 Many factors come into play here. There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. ~ Ansel Adams
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jdizzle Darth Noink  69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Dec 13, 2007 02:45 | #3 I've gone through this many of times and I would suggest the 2.8 IS. Why? Because I went from the f/4(non-IS),than to the 2.8(non-IS), and finally to the 2.8 IS. Hope that answers your question.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Chandler. Goldmember 2,784 posts Likes: 4 Joined Dec 2006 Location: Issaquah More info | Dec 13, 2007 02:47 | #4 jdizzle wrote in post #4495439  I've gone through this many of times and I would suggest the 2.8 IS. Why? Because I went from the f/4(non-IS),than to the 2.8(non-IS), and finally to the 2.8 IS. Hope that answers your question.   I went straight for the 2.8 IS. I love it so much. It's like my child. There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. ~ Ansel Adams
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 13, 2007 02:48 | #5 hi ChandLer! JOE
LOG IN TO REPLY |
amoergosum Goldmember 1,016 posts Likes: 14 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Germany More info | Dec 13, 2007 02:53 | #6 I think you might be interested in my thread here >>>
LOG IN TO REPLY |
simon_says Senior Member 306 posts Joined Aug 2006 Location: Toronto, Canada More info | Dec 13, 2007 02:54 | #7 nordstern1 wrote in post #4495449 hi ChandLer! Use: any...all...general...multi-purpose... size/weight: not an issue... Price: not an issue... Conspicuosity: not an issue... im more concerned w/ IQ...the best IQ out of the 3 versatility is also important Then get the 70-200/2.8L IS. It's by far the most expensive, it's heavy, and draws a lot of attention, but apparently those are non-issues to you. In terms of IQ all lenses are, from a practical standpoint, equal, so any one of them is fine. And the 70-200/2.8L IS is the most versatile - it can do both f/2.8 and IS, which the others can't.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
viperx27 Senior Member 305 posts Joined Aug 2007 More info | Dec 13, 2007 02:55 | #8  Permanent banif you don't have to have 2.8, then the f4 IS. Smaler, lighter, great AF speed, best IS . . .
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 13, 2007 02:56 | #9 thanks jdizzle! ive heard that the 2.8 IS the best of the 70-200s but the reason why i didnt include it as 1 of my choices is because of the price. what ive said bout "price is not an issue" is only for the 3 lenses listed...hehehe JOE
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 13, 2007 03:00 | #10 hey amoergosum! thanks! very helpful! JOE
LOG IN TO REPLY |
amoergosum Goldmember 1,016 posts Likes: 14 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Germany More info | Dec 13, 2007 03:03 | #11 nordstern1 wrote in post #4495474 hey amoergosum! thanks! very helpful! im seriously considering the f/4 IS... you're welcome.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jdizzle Darth Noink 69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Dec 13, 2007 03:06 | #12 nordstern1 wrote in post #4495465 thanks jdizzle! ive heard that the 2.8 IS the best of the 70-200s but the reason why i didnt include it as 1 of my choices is because of the price. what ive said bout "price is not an issue" is only for the 3 lenses listed...hehehe im hoping to get the lens w/c can give the closest in performance to the 2.8 IS Well it's really up to you what you want to buy but, I wound up going to the 2.8 IS in the end anyway. The f/4 IS is good and it has the new 4 stop IS technology but, there will be times when you will be struggling in lowlight. I'm putting out there from my experience but, if you can swing to the 2.8 IS, you won't regret it.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
orisky Goldmember  1,398 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jan 2007 Location: the oc More info | Dec 13, 2007 03:10 | #13 nordstern1 wrote in post #4495474 hey amoergosum! thanks! very helpful! im seriously considering the f/4 IS... I had the 2.8IS, didn't like the weight, went to the F4IS and have a 135L for low light. I'm happy with my choice so far.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
amoergosum Goldmember 1,016 posts Likes: 14 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Germany More info | Dec 13, 2007 03:11 | #14 jdizzle wrote in post #4495487 Well it's really up to you what you want to buy but, I wound up going to the 2.8 IS in the end anyway. The f/4 IS is good and it has the new 4 stop IS technology but, there will be times when you will be struggling in lowlight. I'm putting out there from my experience but, if you can swing to the 2.8 IS, you won't regret it. Did you buy the f/4 first and sold it in order to purchase the f/2.8IS?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 13, 2007 03:17 | #15 jdizzle wrote in post #4495487 Well it's really up to you what you want to buy but, I wound up going to the 2.8 IS in the end anyway. The f/4 IS is good and it has the new 4 stop IS technology but, there will be times when you will be struggling in lowlight. I'm putting out there from my experience but, if you can swing to the 2.8 IS, you won't regret it. yes, i would really love to get the 2.8 IS, its just that my budget only covers the 3 other versions of the 70-200. the 2.8 IS is both a fast lens & has IS w/c compared to my choices, i can only have 1 of those features. well, i have to live w/ that. JOE
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is droneworx 756 guests, 162 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
