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 08 Oct 2009 (Thursday) 15:11
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I downgraded from the 70-200mm f2.8 IS

 
philthejuggler
Goldmember
Avatar
2,300 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Northants, United Kingdom
     
Oct 08, 2009 15:11 |  #1

Been thinking I'd like the 200mm f2.8 L for some time now as the 70-200 f2.8 IS L is usable but not fantastic wide open at the long end.

Still needed a zoom + IS so I thought I'd swap my lens for the 70-200 F4 IS + cash which I put towards a 200L.

Conclusion - good choice! If I need f2.8 I have the 200L - mega sharp, if I need even faster I have the 135L and for handholding the f4 IS in low light it is as good as the f2.8 IS as long as the subject is fairly static.

Both of my new lenses are sharper than sharp. The zoom is nice and light (I didn't have a problem with the weight of the 70-200 2.8 per se, but it was a bit overkill for wandering round snapping with the kids).

Thought I'd share my thoughts - pleased with my decision - hoped these thoughts might be useful to others navigating options around these focal lengths.

Phil


Blog (external link), Website (external link) http://www.pho2u.co.uk …pher-in-northamptonshire/ (external link)
1DsIII, 5DIII, ZE21mm, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2II, 135 f2, 580EXIIx2, X-Pro1x2, 18-55, 35 1.4, 60 2.4, EF-X20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Jeff81
Goldmember
Avatar
1,689 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2008
Location: SoCal
     
Oct 08, 2009 15:13 |  #2

I made the same switch a while ago. Although I just used a TC on my 135L rather than buying the 200L. Very versatile combination of lenses though. Glad you like the move.


6D | Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art, Canon 85 f/1.8
flickr (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cesium
Goldmember
1,967 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
     
Oct 08, 2009 15:14 |  #3

Seems to me like the 200 f/2.8L is gaining popularity. Or maybe I'm just noticing it mentioned more now that I got one myself.

I've heard that it's actually a little (like 1/3 stop) faster than the 2.8 zoom due to less glass elements... any truth to this?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
philthejuggler
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,300 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Northants, United Kingdom
     
Oct 08, 2009 15:20 |  #4

Cesium wrote in post #8785987 (external link)
Seems to me like the 200 f/2.8L is gaining popularity. Or maybe I'm just noticing it mentioned more now that I got one myself.

I've heard that it's actually a little (like 1/3 stop) faster than the 2.8 zoom due to less glass elements... any truth to this?

I've heard that too although I haven't had chance to test the theory. It is a truly wonderful lens though. The sheer sharpness at that aperture and focal length really helps to pop the subject. Now I want the 200mm f2!


Blog (external link), Website (external link) http://www.pho2u.co.uk …pher-in-northamptonshire/ (external link)
1DsIII, 5DIII, ZE21mm, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2II, 135 f2, 580EXIIx2, X-Pro1x2, 18-55, 35 1.4, 60 2.4, EF-X20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BeritOlam
Goldmember
Avatar
1,675 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
     
Oct 08, 2009 16:52 |  #5

philthejuggler wrote in post #8786023 (external link)
Now I want the 200mm f2!

Don't we all!!! You'll have to swap a few more lenses to get that one! ;) ;) ;)

I'm somewhat regretting I didn't buy the 200mm f/2.8 last fall, when a few of their used copies fell under the $500 threshold. It's a lovely lens! I can make do with my 70-200mm f/4 IS for now....but there are a few times where I remember thinking I'd love to have that lens in my arsenal.


Gear List

Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. – Herbert Hoover

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rodinal
Goldmember
1,127 posts
Joined Jul 2008
     
Oct 08, 2009 16:54 |  #6
bannedPermanent ban

philthejuggler wrote in post #8785964 (external link)
now as the 70-200 f2.8 IS L is usable but not fantastic wide open at the long end.

give us a break, will ya...

"very good" and not "fantastic", I agree.
"usable" ? Come on!


1D Mark II • 16-35/2.8L mk I • 24-70L • 70-200/2.8L IS • 50/1.8 • 24-85 • 400/5.6L • 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marloon
Goldmember
4,323 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC.
     
Oct 08, 2009 17:26 |  #7

Rodinal wrote in post #8786486 (external link)
give us a break, will ya...

"very good" and not "fantastic", I agree.
"usable" ? Come on!

Awe crap!!!! Here come the 70-200 2.8 l users!!!

Whatever you do, don't provoke them with their precious 70-200 2.8l is. I did once when I sold it for the 85l, and man... They whipped me to death.

SCREW IT! I've had it! The 70-200mm f2.8 is NOT sharp at 200 wide open! It had to be said! Ahhhh!!! Here they come with pitchforks and lanterns! Quick! Those who got rid of their 70-200 2.8 l is, run!!!!!! Im going to hide behind this bush next to me. Pick your own hiding spot.


I'm MARLON

Former Canon Platinum CPS member

5DII • 24L • 35L • 50L • 85L • 135L • 200LIS

Wordpress Blog (external link)Youtube Channel (external link)Twitter (external link)Gear List (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rodinal
Goldmember
1,127 posts
Joined Jul 2008
     
Oct 08, 2009 17:32 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

18-55 is usable. If you use the same adjective for a 70-200/2.8 IS L wide open, you obviously have a problem.


1D Mark II • 16-35/2.8L mk I • 24-70L • 70-200/2.8L IS • 50/1.8 • 24-85 • 400/5.6L • 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marloon
Goldmember
4,323 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC.
     
Oct 08, 2009 17:34 |  #9

Rodinal wrote in post #8786626 (external link)
18-55 is usable. If you use the same adjective for a 70-200/2.8 IS L wide open, you obviously have a problem.

Why do people always pick on the 18-55? Why?


I'm MARLON

Former Canon Platinum CPS member

5DII • 24L • 35L • 50L • 85L • 135L • 200LIS

Wordpress Blog (external link)Youtube Channel (external link)Twitter (external link)Gear List (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rodinal
Goldmember
1,127 posts
Joined Jul 2008
     
Oct 08, 2009 17:35 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

Marloon wrote in post #8786632 (external link)
Why do people always pick on the 18-55? Why?

Oh, the magical lens that washes-out colors...
Cause most of us have been there.
:)


1D Mark II • 16-35/2.8L mk I • 24-70L • 70-200/2.8L IS • 50/1.8 • 24-85 • 400/5.6L • 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marloon
Goldmember
4,323 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC.
     
Oct 08, 2009 18:44 |  #11

Rodinal wrote in post #8786634 (external link)
Oh, the magical lens that washes-out colors...
Cause most of us have been there.
:)

lol. I wouldn't know. I intentionally avoided it. Based on some reviews like photozone, they said that I was sharp.


I'm MARLON

Former Canon Platinum CPS member

5DII • 24L • 35L • 50L • 85L • 135L • 200LIS

Wordpress Blog (external link)Youtube Channel (external link)Twitter (external link)Gear List (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rodinal
Goldmember
1,127 posts
Joined Jul 2008
     
Oct 08, 2009 20:06 |  #12
bannedPermanent ban

Marloon wrote in post #8786954 (external link)
lol. I wouldn't know. I intentionally avoided it. Based on some reviews like photozone, they said that I was sharp.

Maybe we don't read the same photozone website.

However, technically the resolution is mediocre all-in-all and at 18mm @ f/3.5 it's downright poor. Distortions and vignetting are very high at the wide-end but no big issue at the tele end. The construction quality is soso at best.

Link: http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=2 (external link)


See: that's a "usable" lens. A 70-200/2.8L IS wide open deserves more than "usable".


1D Mark II • 16-35/2.8L mk I • 24-70L • 70-200/2.8L IS • 50/1.8 • 24-85 • 400/5.6L • 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
asysin2leads
I'm kissing arse
Avatar
6,329 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Lebanon, OH
     
Oct 08, 2009 22:10 |  #13

philthejuggler wrote in post #8786023 (external link)
Now I want the 200mm f2!

When my wife and I were looking at super-tele lenses, jokingly I brought up the 200 f/2. I was looking at the 300 f/2.8 primarily. My wife said (and it surprised the crap out of me), "Don't you have the 1.4x and the 2x to make it a longer lens and still keep a f/2.8 and f/4?" (w/ the 200 f/2). I had no idea that my wife paid that much attention to me when I talked about the extenders and losing stops. I bought that woman dinner that night.


Kevin
https://www.google.com ….com&ctz=Americ​a/New_York (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PMCphotography
Goldmember
Avatar
1,775 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Tasmania, Australia.
     
Oct 08, 2009 22:20 |  #14

asysin2leads wrote in post #8787997 (external link)
When my wife and I were looking at super-tele lenses, jokingly I brought up the 200 f/2. I was looking at the 300 f/2.8 primarily. My wife said (and it surprised the crap out of me), "Don't you have the 1.4x and the 2x to make it a longer lens and still keep a f/2.8 and f/4?" (w/ the 200 f/2). I had no idea that my wife paid that much attention to me when I talked about the extenders and losing stops. I bought that woman dinner that night.

I wish my Fiancee paid that much attention to what I said

;)


Twitter (external link)
Hobart Wedding Photography (external link)
I have some camera stuff. Here it is.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sol95
Senior Member
661 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Oct 08, 2009 22:21 |  #15

I did the same thing as the OP late last year, and I'm more than happy with the "downgrade".


Bodies: 5D mk III
Lenses: 50 f/1.2L | 85 f/1.2L II | 100 f/2.8L IS Macro | 17-40 f/4.0L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
Accessories: 430EX II | TC-80N3 M43: Olympus E-PM1 | Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42 II R | Panasonic 14 f/2.5 | Panasonic 20 f/1.8 | Olympus m.Zuiko 45 f/1.8

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

3,488 views & 0 likes for this thread
I downgraded from the 70-200mm f2.8 IS
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 Shawvon
976 guests, 341 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.