70-200

The lens and myself have a love-hate relationship. I really want one, but probably not because I need the zoom focal length,but because its so popular and its a good lens iQ-wise. Regardless of aperture type or brand type.
I just cant see myself getting one. Ive had the funds for it,several times, all f/4 2.8 and IS. Just never bought it. One of the reasons may be that I may end up overlooking my primes. Its a great -walking around sport events or the like- lens. But for me the 17-40 L is enough of a walk around lens.

No solid issue with this thread, except perhaps why did you find interest in the 70-200 focal lengthS?

I had the 135L and loved it, but the conveince factor of a zoom with almost as good results and IS made the 135 all but obsolete

The 70-200 covers pretty much all the telephoto area that's most common, unless you are doing something more specifically, which you'd want something longer. Generally though, its range covers a vast amount of topics so to speak.

It's very versatile, especially if you are at 2.8 and IS. 2.8 already makes it very versatile, but with IS, it just gives the lens even more life. The quality is stellar, that you won't lose a significant amount if you don't use a prime. Also it gives you a zoom that delievers good bokeh.

I have been borrowing a 70-200 2.8 swap for my 200L. I love the IQ and light weight of the 200L, but I was missing the shorter lengths the zoom offered. IQ with the prime is better at 200mm, but the 70-200 2.8 is very good for a zoom - most of the penalty for the zoom is in weight - the zoom feels like I am carrying a 200 and 135 prime in the bag. If you can change lenses often without missing shots, primes are great - if not then a zoom is required.
The 70-200 range is very good for event shooting, sports, PJ, and close wildlife - overall I find the range extremely versatile on a crop camera. I would not call it a walkaround lens at all - I use the 17-55 whenever I take one lens, and the bulk of my shots are 50mm and under.

I use the 200L prime and the 70-200 zoom on 2 bodies for field sports. To me, it's the best of all possible worlds, especially when I pair the prime with a teleconverter. I don't find that using the 70-200 makes my primes take a back seat. It's just another tool to use in conjunction with them to get the best possible shot.

Liza, how do you find the 200 f2.8 with the 1.4x TC? Do you have any pictures with the combo?

I just did a few test shots with a 2x with this lens and they look good but I don't know better the 1.4x would be.

Thanks

I like the 70-200 for outdoor portraits because you can zoom out for more full body shoots and then soom in for closer shots without moving the tripod.

4x4 Rock-
This is the only one I could find that was definitely taken with that combo. I apologize for the quality or lack thereof.
http://emphotography.s​mugmug.com/photos/6222​9599-L.jpg

Liza, thanks for the pic

I shoot a LOT of sports;
The 70-200 F4 is on my camera more than any other lens I have.

I've only wanted the 2.8 one time; I tried shooting basketball and no one was allowed out of that stands during play (Little kids) and the lighting was @$$

Other than that; the F4 does what I need it to do.
I find I don't need IS to stabilize the lens @ 200 mm; only 300+

I just bought the 100-400 specifically for Airshows

I use my 70-200 f/4 for panning motorsports and for static auto shots. Its perfect for that for me anyway. I will probably use it for a friends outdoor portraits later in the summer as well as some macro with tubes.

I agree with that. the 70-200 2.8L is too havy to be a walkaround I think

Depends what range and what's entailed in walk around. I walk around with it all the time for my PJ stuff.

In this shot, it was nice to be able to zoom in or out for example.

IMAGE LINK: http://img171.imagesha​ck.us …1/5294/haasimg7​391uu9.jpg