Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 28 Aug 2008 (Thursday) 12:38
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Which Would You Get?"
Canon 70-200 f2.8
26
61.9%
Canon Speedlite 580EX II
16
38.1%

42 voters, 42 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which Should I get? Canon 70-200 2.8 or 580 EX II...

 
DANNY454
Senior Member
Avatar
256 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.
     
Aug 28, 2008 12:38 |  #1

Hello all, I was going to just get the 580 EX just so I would have a flash....but I have someone that will give me $550 for my 70-200 F4 (Its only 4 months old), so with that money added to what I was going to spend on the 580, I would have just about what I would need to buy a 70-20 2.8. I'm 16 and shoot with a 30D and work for a little newpaper some. I was thinking of shooting some sports this year...so I would need a fast lens such as the 70-200 2.8, but I just can't decide, so what would you get?

Edit, I have a 70-200 f4 and the 18-55 kit lens.

My work...


Canon 30D, 70-200 f/2.8L, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Lowepro flipside 200.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Aug 28, 2008 12:44 |  #2

What lenses do you have now? I would probably rather have the 580EXII and my 17-85mm f/4-5.6 than a fast lens (or two) and NO flash (if I REALLY had to choose.... ;) )




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shutterfiend
Goldmember
2,058 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: NJ
     
Aug 28, 2008 12:50 |  #3

Based on your needs it seems the 7-2 would be a logical upgrade.


https://photography-on-the.net …p=7812587&postc​ount=91776

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
darkninja67
Senior Member
Avatar
316 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Boston, MA
     
Aug 28, 2008 12:51 as a reply to  @ shutterfiend's post |  #4

Shooting sports? go with the bread and butter.


Bill

Canon 40D gripped, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Sigma 24-60mm f2.8, Tokina 50-135mm f2.8, Feisol CT-3442 w/ Manfrotto 488RC4 ballhead, Manfrotto 679B monopod

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Aug 28, 2008 12:54 as a reply to  @ darkninja67's post |  #5

Oh yeah, sports - get the 70-200mm f/2.8!

I sucked at sports as a kid, so now I tend to avoid shooting them ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timrocks311
Senior Member
288 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: PA
     
Aug 28, 2008 13:03 |  #6

i'd definitely get the lens over the flash.


70D | 18-35 Art | 50 f/1.4 | 85 f/1.8 | 100L
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fxk
Senior Member
578 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: The vast wilderness of the Mid-Atlantic states
     
Aug 28, 2008 14:00 |  #7

I hate to say it...

Is this just a case of money burning a hole in your pocket? I looked at your site, and you seem to be doing well with what you have.

Are you planning to shoot flash - a lot? If not, consider renting a 580 when you need it - lot cheaper than owning one...

You _may_ shoot sports - daytime? - under the lights? Will you need that extra stop - really? Maybe you should put a few more bucks together and get a 2.8 w/IS later. That 2.8 is a much heavier beast (and some say not as good as the f/4).

At 16, weight should not kill you - get to the gym! Seriously, take a breath. Consider what you are not able to do now but would like to do. What would you need to be able to do it?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DANNY454
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
256 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.
     
Aug 28, 2008 15:23 |  #8

fxk wrote in post #6197965 (external link)
I hate to say it...

Is this just a case of money burning a hole in your pocket? I looked at your site, and you seem to be doing well with what you have.

Are you planning to shoot flash - a lot? If not, consider renting a 580 when you need it - lot cheaper than owning one...

You _may_ shoot sports - daytime? - under the lights? Will you need that extra stop - really? Maybe you should put a few more bucks together and get a 2.8 w/IS later. That 2.8 is a much heavier beast (and some say not as good as the f/4).

At 16, weight should not kill you - get to the gym! Seriously, take a breath. Consider what you are not able to do now but would like to do. What would you need to be able to do it?

I don't think I would shoot the flash a lot. At 16 weight dosen't matter to me. I do shoot in low light a lot though. I also wanted the 2.8 for the DOF it has. If I would shoot football it would be under the lights. I really want the 580 + 70-200 2.8 right now....but I only have money for one. I only make 6.25 an hour...so I save everything I get.


Canon 30D, 70-200 f/2.8L, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Lowepro flipside 200.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fxk
Senior Member
578 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: The vast wilderness of the Mid-Atlantic states
     
Aug 28, 2008 20:30 |  #9

Well, the 2.8 is a fine piece of glass - you won't really notice anything different if you trade the f/4.0 for the f/2.8 - except the extra stop, and the softer background outside DOF. These lenses hold their value well so trading is always a possibility in the future should you eventually want the IS.

Football under the lights can be pretty dark, and you do need all the shutter speed you can get to help freeze the action.

Good luck with your endevors!

frank




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DANNY454
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
256 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.
     
Aug 29, 2008 01:22 |  #10

fxk wrote in post #6200078 (external link)
Well, the 2.8 is a fine piece of glass - you won't really notice anything different if you trade the f/4.0 for the f/2.8 - except the extra stop, and the softer background outside DOF. These lenses hold their value well so trading is always a possibility in the future should you eventually want the IS.

Football under the lights can be pretty dark, and you do need all the shutter speed you can get to help freeze the action.

Good luck with your endevors!

frank

I have never used a lens with IS, dose IS really work that well?


Canon 30D, 70-200 f/2.8L, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Lowepro flipside 200.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ll ­ PaSt ­ ll
Member
65 posts
Joined Nov 2007
     
Aug 29, 2008 01:45 |  #11

shutterfiend wrote in post #6197515 (external link)
Based on your needs it seems the 7-2 would be a logical upgrade.

+1

and IS works really well for sports, at least in my case it does
=D

Def. the lens in your case




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fxk
Senior Member
578 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: The vast wilderness of the Mid-Atlantic states
     
Aug 29, 2008 08:32 |  #12

DANNY454 wrote in post #6201623 (external link)
I have never used a lens with IS, dose IS really work that well?

As long as you remember it won't help stop subject action - it just compensates for camera motion - and it is not magic - but can be very useful especially in low-light, low shutter speed situations. If you're shooting 1/1000 or above, IS doesn't do much.

Us old-farts like IS because we arean't quite as steady as we were at 16... :p




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sando
Goldmember
Avatar
2,868 posts
Joined Apr 2006
     
Aug 29, 2008 08:39 |  #13

I find IS useful for shooting in the 1/40th up to 1/100th range more than with slow shutter speeds. As said, because it doesn't stop subject motion... only camera motion.


- Matt

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DANNY454
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
256 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.
     
Aug 29, 2008 15:56 |  #14

Thanks!


Canon 30D, 70-200 f/2.8L, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Lowepro flipside 200.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,293 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which Should I get? Canon 70-200 2.8 or 580 EX II...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is atomanth
901 guests, 245 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.