Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

jyllana24 wrote in post #11031232
I agree it is a soft shot and I saw his/her website I don't feel that's a photography. Unlike the one that you've posted. I am an amateur photographer but I do know how to look on a picture that you can say "that's a real image photography"

I don't have anything against with that guy I just want to comment with his/her photo.

Btw, I have the attached sample photo that I shot using a stock t1i and a stock lens comes with it.

Thanks

What the £$%& is this about???

I agree with the others about blur but it looks more motion blur to me than soft focus.
As you say you are a amateur maybe up the ISO a bit for a bit more shutter speed.

mury wrote in post #11305172
I recently bought 70-200mm f/2.8L, but I find a little lens play at the camera mount.
It is possible to rotate the lens after it has been locked on the body. The movement
is probably less then 1 mm but still ...
The body is 50d and I have been using at least 10 other lenses including 70-200mm f/4
and have not seen such problem. On Internet half of the opinions are that it is normal and
the other half that it is not.
Is it getting worse with teleconverter attached?

Any response will be greatly appreciated!

same here but no worries as everyone says here it's normal.

My new 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS arrived and now I see why people prefer the IS version...that thing is heavy. I need to compare the weight with my Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ED (also non-IS), which feels lighter. I use a monopod frequently, so not worried about the lack of image stabilization. Initial test shows it is fairly sharp, so for the price I am happy. Of course, the price dropped 2 days after I placed the order. =(

I'm confused by that statement. The IS isn't much different in weight. The f/4 is way lighter/smaller. Both f/2.8's are the same. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks everyone for the replies! I am getting use to that lens play.
So far I am happy, I find 70-200 f/2.8@f/3.2 already slightly
sharper then my old 70-200 f/4@f/4 and probably because of the
weight I can handhold the new lens at lower speed.

kMayer wrote in post #11313604
I'm confused by that statement. The IS isn't much different in weight. The f/4 is way lighter/smaller. Both f/2.8's are the same. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What I meant is, because the lens is so heavy, it is more difficult to hold still, and thus would lead a person to prefer the IS version. I did not mean to convey that the IS lens is lighter.

Sorry for any confusion.

mury wrote in post #11313927
Thanks everyone for the replies! I am getting use to that lens play.
So far I am happy, I find 70-200 f/2.8@f/3.2 already slightly
sharper then my old 70-200 f/4@f/4 and probably because of the
weight I can handhold the new lens at lower speed.

This is my go-to lens as I love to shoot sports and portraits. Slap a 1.4xII on occasion and even though a slight IQ loss, I still have a lot keepers than deleted pics. A bit heavy but you'll get use to it. I use a hand strap as I don't want those straps dangling around during shoots. Enjoy your lens.

Nice catch, drigo

ecka wrote in post #11325632
Nice catch, drigo

thanks!

5 days since the last post

nice panning frizzle

shot through a glass wall

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

My first time out with the 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS)...

drigo wrote in post #11359850
shot through a glass wall

Impressive shot. Doubly - seeing it's through glass.
Very sharp & my wife is a big tiger fan.