jlw82 Member 165 posts Joined Sep 2005 More info | Jan 06, 2006 19:00 | #1 Im going to get a new lens in Januari. Some of the 70-200mm L versions. I think the 2.8 version are BIG and heavy and a bit pricey, but i like to take pictures in low light. The f4 is more in my pricerange... So, I get the 2.8f with "just changing the ISO a step or two". And getting a little bit noise.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tim Light Bringer  51,010 posts Likes: 375 Joined Nov 2004 Location: Wellington, New Zealand More info | Jan 06, 2006 19:44 | #2 For low light obviously the 2.8 will let you use one stop lower ISO, which is generally a good thing. Unless you really need that stop the F4 is a good choice because it's so much cheaper. Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
liza Cream of the Crop 11,386 posts Likes: 1 Joined Feb 2005 Location: Mayberry More info | Jan 06, 2006 20:19 | #3  Permanent banHow low is the light? I shoot sports, and sometimes even a 2.8 lens won't cut it in a dimly lit high school gym.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SteveParr should have taken his own advice  6,593 posts Likes: 2 Joined Feb 2005 Location: San Diego, CA More info | Permanent ban I bought the f/2.8 version, and I love it. Steve
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Tsmith Formerly known as Bluedog_XT  10,429 posts Likes: 26 Joined Jul 2005 Location: South_the 601 More info | Jan 06, 2006 20:36 | #5 I got the f/4 (for the time being) cause I generally use it outside and usually enough light. Very sharp even wide open.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
I went through the same debate and ended up with the f/2.8. Yes, it's about $500 more, BUT it does come with the tripod mount (a $125 option with the f/4) and the extra stop. I eventually will buy the 1.4 extender; the f/2.8 is a better choice if an extender is in your future. If you don't care about a tripod mount or an extender, go with the f/4. If that ends up not suiting your needs, don't worry; you'll lose very little selling it used. Elton Balch
LOG IN TO REPLY |
sugarzebra Cream of the Crop  More info | Jan 06, 2006 22:09 | #7 Think about purchasing a used f/4, while you save for the f/2.8 and you will have a great lens to use right away that will hold all of its value until you get the faster lens. Then do the same thing until you arrive at the f/2.8 IS. "L-everage" is a great thing! Scott
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tim Light Bringer 51,010 posts Likes: 375 Joined Nov 2004 Location: Wellington, New Zealand More info | Jan 06, 2006 22:16 | #8 I do like my 2.8IS lens, in a dark church I still sometimes need ISO1600, but at least I can hand hold it with the IS. Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Medic1 Goldmember  1,308 posts Joined Dec 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada More info | Jan 06, 2006 23:10 | #9 I have the 70-200 f4L and FWIW, I really wish I would have saved the money I spent on it and bought the 2.8 (either IS or not)....many days I have wished that it could handle the lower light situations. Don't get me wrong, its a great lens....but just not able to maintain good shutter speeds in a variety of conditions without bumping the ISO up.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mark_Cohran Cream of the Crop  More info | Jan 06, 2006 23:14 | #10 If you can afford it, go for the f2.8. You won't regret it. Mark
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 was a spammer, and banned as such! 2508 guests, 102 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
