My 70-200 is here :)

ed rader wrote in post #13735491
the 70-200 is a must-have piece of kit, imo. did you get the f4? your dog reminds me so much of Lucy....man i miss her.

ed rader

Nice shot

ed rader wrote in post #13735535
with kenji it's likely to be a sigma ! canon makes four 70-200Ls if you are counting only current models.

ed rader

And you'd be wrong Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM

skygod44 wrote in post #13735548
KENJI!!!!!! GET INSIDE, QUICK!!!!!!

I, for one, haven't forgotten what happened when you took your 30D out in the snow!


And, I'd also like to hear which one you got....f/4? f/2.8? With IS? Without? Mark I? Mark II?

Come on....more details please!

You apparently missed me killing my 7D a while back man.. XD It got better though

And as i stated above the f/4L IS

rick_reno wrote in post #13735563
Which one is it?

Ok ok im lying, I'm secretly testing the new f/4L IS II which they're bringing out in July, keep it quiet though

Anyways wish i had it a few days ago, im processing some more pics of Skye i did outside before the 70-200 got here and the lighting and my angles were so much better in them The 70-200 woulda been nicer to use than my 100L!

It does also confirm that my shutter speeds were just too slow earlier (My best shots are at 1/1000+)

But hey, im admitting it, i fracked up, the lens itself is great and im hoping we continue to have snow the next few days so i can try again

You destroyed your 7D? (Or something close to it?) Sorry, been busy with the new baby, so I've not been in POTN much lately...

But the new lens looks sexy! I went down the f/2.8 non-IS route myself and haven't looked back. Great on a monopod for concerts for Missus Skygod.

I'm sure you'll love your lens too, the more you use it!
Though it can't replace my primes, I'm still over the moon with what it does, exactly when-and-where I need it.

skygod44 wrote in post #13736231
You destroyed your 7D? (Or something close to it?) Sorry, been busy with the new baby, so I've not been in POTN much lately...

Temporarily killed and then resurrected my 7D.. Same 7D it just had a death scare from some rain...

Anyways, Heres some more shots with the new 70-200, Sadly im a bit short on subjects so a lot of pics have been of Skye...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​739825165/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​739852011/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​739899005/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​739899133/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​739899263/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​739899401/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​739899569/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​739899713/

Nice, that #7 is a really good one. Like the look of that lens on the 7D...

great pics Kenji. I'm kinda on the fence about which 70-200 I should get. I kinda want the 2.8 IS USM 2, but I know for the most part i'll be using it outdoors so it kinda has me trying to figure out if that one is worth the extra money or just get the f4.

triton3k wrote in post #13746725
great pics Kenji. I'm kinda on the fence about which 70-200 I should get. I kinda want the 2.8 IS USM 2, but I know for the most part i'll be using it outdoors so it kinda has me trying to figure out if that one is worth the extra money or just get the f4.

What are you shooting?

The f/4L IS is particularly great, and heck, even when the light gets a bit crap i have found it to still be pretty quick on the 7D (Or simply dont see that f/2.8 is going to achieve a goal of "Get an adequate shutter speed" or "lower the ISO appreciably")

But if i shot nothing but a LOT of sports and action, then id probubly grab the f/2.8 even outside, The little bit extra certainly never hurts... For me, its a small amount of what i shoot most likely, and my body is not in any condition to handle a f/2.8 anymore...

One thing to consider, At current pricing, you could get the f/4L IS AND a 100L for the price of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II For low light you can always slap the 100L on there and use it...and it makes an excellent Macro lens

I'll add another "well done!" at your shots, Kenji.
Albeit websized images, Skye looks really sharp, and the BG is 'nicely' soft
Which AF mode/focus points did you use with the pics of Skye?

And I won't get involved with the "which 70-200L to buy" debate above, except to say I bought the f/2.8 non-IS BECAUSE I use mine mostly inside, on a monopod or tripod for classical concerts (for which I get paid), so mine paid for itself in one concert. The all-singing-all-dancing 2.8 IS-2 would've taken 3 concerts to pay for itself....but I spent that money on the deposit of my new car!!!!

So, @triton3k, if you know exactly why you'd want/need an f/2.8 IS-2, get it. If you're not sure, why spend the money when as you can see from Kenji, the f4 is a cracker!

Cheers for now,
Simon

Of course theres a third consideration, The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS is the second best 70-200 you can get, It gives you the speed of the f/2.8 at the price of the f/4 IS with the stabilization the non-IS f/2.8 lacks...

Sharpness wise, its not the Mk II, but its also more than a grand less and not really "terrible"... its better than the Mk1 IS actually