Please talk me out of the 70-200/2.8 IS... (please?)

My wife will make me sleep in the garage with the dogs after she castrates me.

This lens would go on a 50D. I need something with a little reach but I think it's too long for a cropped sensor. (Or is it?)

God I want it! (he screamed in soprano :eek.

I like to shoot stationary from a pew on a monopod when I can. I borrowed somebody's 135 f/2.8 SF and it's great but I need something in a zoom. I'm a big guy and my fat arse only attracts attention when I'm on the move. I'm concerned that this hideous looking phallic symbol will only make it worse.

Please help me save my marriage. (And my gene pool).

Thanks!

-RT (Eunuch-in-Training)

This is not going to help you, buy it, use it, enjoy it, as for your marriage well I can't help you there having been there 4 time's myself.

OK here goes, you don't want that lens know matter what anyone says. It's just way too flexible after all it can be used for weddings, portraits, nature, landscapes and sports thats just way too much to committ to. And besides it's too sharp and clear you will be able to see everything and after all no one should have to go through that. Also it focuses very fast you'll look too much like your flipping it around and shooting. And 2.8 geez thats overkill if your photos are properly exposed in bad venues people will think you did some kind of magic tricks to them to make them THAT good. God who wants to put that kind of attention on their photos and the pressure I mean you wouldn't have too much at all considering the performance of that glass and how are we to survive without a ton of pressure from worrying if are images are any good. BAH who needs glass like that its nothing but trouble I am telling you. Also stay away from love, children and puppies as they are evil too.

DO NOT BUY the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens!!!

I repeat: DO NOT BUY the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens!!!

INSTEAD, hold out until January 2010, when the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is rumored to come out. [here's the link]

Rent it. If you find it usefull, buy it.

You guys are killing me!

ScullenCrossBones wrote in post #9061878
Rent it. If you find it usefull, buy it.

I live in the arsehole of the world. Renting is a $150 mail order option for yours truly. (Kind of like my first wife.ops. Besides, ain't that kind of like taking a new puppy home from the pet store and tryin' it out?

I'm, "this close" to ordering one. Somebody STOP ME! I think I can juggle the household books and convince the Mrs It's a rolling pin I got for $7.95 at a flea market... BRILLIANT!

Oh my god I'm in freaking IS heaven!

Really, who needs testicles anyway?

RT McAllister wrote in post #9061278
My wife will make me sleep in the garage with the dogs after she castrates me.

This lens would go on a 50D. I need something with a little reach but I think it's too long for a cropped sensor. (Or is it?)

God I want it! (he screamed in soprano :eek.

I like to shoot stationary from a pew on a monopod when I can. I borrowed somebody's 135 f/2.8 SF and it's great but I need something in a zoom. I'm a big guy and my fat arse only attracts attention when I'm on the move. I'm concerned that this hideous looking phallic symbol will only make it worse.

Please help me save my marriage. (And my gene pool).

Thanks!

-RT (Eunuch-in-Training)

Don't buy the lens! Instead buy my 70-200 (with no IS) so I can buy the one you want!!!

RT McAllister wrote in post #9061278
I like to shoot stationary from a pew on a monopod when I can.

In that case (using monopod), save the $600 and get the non-IS version.

swampler wrote in post #9062124
In that case (using monopod), save the $600 and get the non-IS version.

Way to rain on my parade getting all practical and such.

Yeah, I thought of the non IS version. I'm not always on a monopod though - just prefer it. But I know the IS doesn't help with motion.

I swear, if Canon came out with a 55-150 f/2.8 IS I'd buy a bushel of 'em.

It's one of those lenses that almost every wedding photographer has. If you need a good fast telephoto zoom, this is it. Your other option is to stand closer.

The next part is social engineering... you want to work out how to have your wife tell YOU to buy the lens. I think we'll need a woman to give you advice on this, they're far more... creative in this area than guys

WOW, that's a fantastic idea Tim!

oh, and I totally agree RT that I would jump on a 55-150/2.8 IS at the drop of a hat!

70-200 f/2.8 IS is useful sometimes for church weddings ONLY. Not necessary for any other occasion, and if you can get close enough it is superceded in usefulness by any other lens with a faster aperture. The fact that it's only f/2.8 and my cameras don't go past ISO3200 killed me yesterday. I still got the shot (first kiss, 1/10th second kiss and that was it) but it was a little blurry because they moved so FAST.

tim wrote in post #9062833
If you need a good fast telephoto zoom, this is it. Your other option is to stand closer.

Yep. That about sums it up.

Plus, it's not like these things tank on the resale market. (Which is kind of moot since I'll probably lose it in the divorce).

I ain't smart enough for these tactics Tim. The one time I tried she got a Lexus out of the deal and I was rewarded with celibacy that lasted at least a month. Go figure.

form wrote in post #9063505
70-200 f/2.8 IS is useful sometimes for church weddings ONLY. Not necessary for any other occasion, and if you can get close enough it is superceded in usefulness by any other lens with a faster aperture. The fact that it's only f/2.8 and my cameras don't go past ISO3200 killed me yesterday. I still got the shot (first kiss, 1/10th second kiss and that was it) but it was a little blurry because they moved so FAST.

I photographed a garden wedding on Saturday. If I was using my 17-55 i'd have had to have been quite close and intrusive. With the 70-200 I stayed back behind all the guests and still got great photos.

All generalisations are wrong

RT McAllister wrote in post #9063631
I ain't smart enough for these tactics Tim. The one time I tried she got a Lexus out of the deal and I was rewarded with celibacy that lasted at least a month. Go figure.

Yeah I think you should ask a woman to figure this one out for you!

form wrote in post #9063505
70-200 f/2.8 IS is useful sometimes for church weddings ONLY. Not necessary for any other occasion, and if you can get close enough it is superceded in usefulness by any other lens with a faster aperture.

There is more wisdom in this statement than most people will ever know.

The pragmatist in me isn't quite brain dead yet. That's why I'm also considering the 135 f/2.0L + 85/ f/1.8. I'd still have dough left over to take Mrs. McAllister away for a romantic weekend or maybe get a new trolling motor for the bass boat. (Note to self: cancel cottage reservation).

These 2 guys combined with my 17-55 f/2.8 will work just fine if need be. I'm just getting too lazy for primes I guess.

Been there on the 50D myself. For me, there's very little room to crop at 3200 so it had better be right just the way it is.