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
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 02 Oct 2006 (Monday) 01:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

would it be bad (f/2.8 Vs. f/4 zoom lenses?)

 
Col_M
Goldmember
Avatar
1,110 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Prague, Czech Rep.
     
Oct 02, 2006 08:36 |  #16

Photolistic wrote in post #2064685 (external link)
they can do anything that a f4 can do and more right?

Yeah, you're spot on, buy all f/2.8 zooms then punctutate the range with strategicly placed fast primes and you've got a choice of lenses that will do almost anything you need :D


Col (short for Colin)

5D+Grip¦24-70L¦50 1.4¦100 2.8 Macro¦Sigma 70-200 EX DG¦430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tiffany
Member
Avatar
130 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
     
Oct 02, 2006 09:32 |  #17

Photolistic wrote in post #2064724 (external link)
thanks 70-200 2.8 is for me then. Just cant decide. canon 70-200 2.8 IS or sigma 70-200 2.8 macro and another lens

That's my dilemma today - the Sigma and a backup body with a monopod, or the IS? For weddings, I'm leaning towards the IS, but it kills me to wait on a backup body!


Tiffany Ring
www.tiffanyring.net (external link)
Camera: big black one :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
peterdoomen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,123 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Lier, Flanders (northern, flemish speaking part of Belgium)
     
Oct 02, 2006 11:47 |  #18

Permagrin wrote in post #2064705 (external link)
I like that Peter...when I switch my signature, that's going on there :)

Actually, I got this quote from another POTN member. I believe this is where I read it:

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=1963724#p​ost1963724

So you can quote "me" if you get "his" approval ;-)a

P.


Canon EOS 20D | Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS + Hoya UV Filter | Canon Extender 1.4x | Canon 50 f/1.8 | Canon 85 f/1.2L mk II | Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-f/4| Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Tokina 100 f/2.8 macro | Kenko extension tubes | Canon Speedlite 420 EX & Sto-fen Omnibounce| 80GB Flashtrax | Manfrotto Tripod 190 pro B & Joystick 322RC2 | Lowepro Micro Trekker 200
PDFs: Make money with ShutterStock (external link) - Make your own Tabletop Studio (external link)- Glass Buying Guide (external link)
My ShutterStock Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rklepper
Dignity-Esteem-Compassion
Avatar
9,019 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Dec 2003
Location: No longer living at the center of the known universe, moved just slightly to the right. Iowa, USA.
     
Oct 02, 2006 13:51 |  #19

peterdoomen wrote in post #2064701 (external link)
Basically, you are right.

But:

1) f/2.8 is sometimes not enough. You need faster apertures for special effects and in bad light conditions.
2) there are also disadvantages: f/2.8 lenses are more expensive and heavier (compare 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 -> f/4 is far more suited when taking photos in an animal park, for example)
3) not all lenses are sharp wide open, thereby limiting the usefulness of wide apertures.

Other than that, speed is your friend.

P.

Unless you look at the 200 f/2.8L Not so heavy and lightening fast.


Doc Klepper in the USA
I
am a photorealist, I like my photos with a touch of what was actually there.
Polite C&C always welcome, Thanks. Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SimonG
Goldmember
Avatar
1,007 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Kitchener, ON
     
Oct 02, 2006 14:07 as a reply to  @ rklepper's post |  #20

Doc, the OP was interested in f/2.8 zooms, which do tend to be significantly heavier than their slower cousins. Of course the f/2.8 (or better) primes are much lighter until you get into the super-telephoto realm.


-- Michael (a.k.a. SimonG)
EOS 5D | 17-40 f/4L | 24-105 f/4L | 40 f/2.8 | 50 f/1.4 | 85 f/1.4 | 430EX | Zenfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zacker
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,006 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Oxford, CT.
     
Oct 02, 2006 14:15 |  #21

lol the only f2.8 lens i have is my 100 macro and i dont shoot f2.8 with it, usually more like f8 or 11 !!! Id love a 70-200 f2.8IS but my f4 L is fine for now!


http://www.theanimalha​ven.com (external link)
My Facebook, Friend me If you want!http://www.facebook.co​m/brokenfencephotograp​hy (external link)

http://www.facebook.co​m/theanimalhaven?ref=t​s (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Photolistic
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,632 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Oregon City, Oregon
     
Oct 02, 2006 14:27 |  #22
bannedPermanent ban

Where is the best price for the canon 70-200 2.8 non IS?


FOR SALE: Canon 30D, 10D, and D2000
click here for SALE
I *heart* Mac
My Technology
My Photographs (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SimonG
Goldmember
Avatar
1,007 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Kitchener, ON
     
Oct 02, 2006 14:29 |  #23

Hard to say without knowing what country you call home. ;)


-- Michael (a.k.a. SimonG)
EOS 5D | 17-40 f/4L | 24-105 f/4L | 40 f/2.8 | 50 f/1.4 | 85 f/1.4 | 430EX | Zenfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Photolistic
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,632 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Oregon City, Oregon
     
Oct 02, 2006 14:44 |  #24
bannedPermanent ban

US sorry


FOR SALE: Canon 30D, 10D, and D2000
click here for SALE
I *heart* Mac
My Technology
My Photographs (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Madweasel
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,224 posts
Likes: 61
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Fareham, UK
     
Oct 02, 2006 15:39 |  #25

Col_M wrote in post #2065518 (external link)
Yeah, you're spot on, buy all f/2.8 zooms then punctutate the range with strategicly placed fast primes and you've got a choice of lenses that will do almost anything you need :D

...and muscles like Schwarzenegger! I think the weight penalty of that approach is restrictive. This simply shows that it's horses for courses, and you should look for the gear that suits your needs, which may not be the fastest, most expensive you can find. If it is, then you'd better be well off!


Mark.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Avatar
33,046 posts
Gallery: 3035 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 47415
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Oct 02, 2006 16:07 |  #26

Madweasel wrote in post #2067299 (external link)
...and muscles like Schwarzenegger! I think the weight penalty of that approach is restrictive. This simply shows that it's horses for courses, and you should look for the gear that suits your needs, which may not be the fastest, most expensive you can find. If it is, then you'd better be well off!

Yes, I went for a mixture of f4 zooms and lightweight fast(ish) primes. f2.8 is not that fast at most focal lengths.


Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV
flickr (external link) Flickr Home (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Photolistic
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,632 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Oregon City, Oregon
     
Oct 02, 2006 16:09 |  #27
bannedPermanent ban

How much less weight would a canon 70-200 f4L be than the 2.8?


FOR SALE: Canon 30D, 10D, and D2000
click here for SALE
I *heart* Mac
My Technology
My Photographs (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Madweasel
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,224 posts
Likes: 61
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Fareham, UK
     
Oct 02, 2006 16:19 |  #28

Photolistic wrote in post #2067468 (external link)
How much less weight would a canon 70-200 f4L be than the 2.8?

865g

The 70-200/2.8 IS is 1570g, the 70-200/4 is 705g, according to the Canon 2006 brochure.


Mark.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Madweasel
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,224 posts
Likes: 61
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Fareham, UK
     
Oct 02, 2006 16:21 |  #29

Just noticed you're in US, so almost 2lbs. How's that? Multilingual!


Mark.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Photolistic
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,632 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Oregon City, Oregon
     
Oct 02, 2006 16:30 |  #30
bannedPermanent ban

WOW that a lot more! Is it that much more on the non IS?


FOR SALE: Canon 30D, 10D, and D2000
click here for SALE
I *heart* Mac
My Technology
My Photographs (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

3,195 views & 0 likes for this thread, 22 members have posted to it.
would it be bad (f/2.8 Vs. f/4 zoom lenses?)
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

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 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
2649 guests, 160 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, 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.