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

AlexMa wrote in post #2064813
Looks like the statement should be:

buy all 2.8 lenses or faster...............

Well Dante sure is capable of this.

Madweasel wrote in post #2067299
...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!

LOL I didn't mean you have to take them with you all the time Most of us choose lenses that we are likely to use for a trip/day and only take them
And they don't have to be all expensive, sigma make very good alternatives to the expensive canon 2.8 zooms at much more wallet friendly prices

Photolistic wrote in post #2067583
WOW that a lot more! Is it that much more on the non IS?

The non-IS 2.8 is 2.8 lbs. vs. 3.2 lbs fo the IS. 0.4 lbs difference.

BradT0517 wrote in post #2067590
Well Dante sure is capable of this.

A stud is a stud!

I'd wish I had a 1dmk2N and a 5D for a back up.

:p

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2067451
Yes, I went for a mixture of f4 zooms and lightweight fast(ish) primes. f2.8 is not that fast at most focal lengths.

That is my way to go.I have the 17-40 and the 70-200.It is a very good,lightweight combo.Now for special low light situations the way to go is a prime lens.I have the 50 1.8 and plan to buy more.

Yeah, but your wallet is lighter, so it balances out.


I wish there was a Canon 24-105mm f2.8 IS

Buying all f2.8 or faster?

Actually, that is a strategy many of us are following.

Unless you are buying ultra wide angle or super telephoto, it is possible also!

P.