Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by raptor_talon, Jan 23, 2005.
what am i going to be missing with the f4?
1 stop and the possibilty of not being able to use the f/4 indoors
I can live with that. f4 it is.
no kidding, at half the price too
the filter size of the F/4 is non standard, though possibly cheeper than the F/2.8. The 2.8 is heavier and more expensive, but if you ever do indoor shots or low light shots, you'll really miss the 2.8 or 2.8 IS.
If you don't absolutly need to shoot indoor low light, get the f4. Its half the money and a great lense.
just got out of the newbie cue
i use the 70-200 f/4L and have used the 70-200 f/2.8L and f/2.8L IS versions in the past. the IS is nice, but not entirely necessary. imho, the 2.8 by itself doesn't really act as a good indoors camera...if you want something low light, you should really go with the f/2.8L IS as it'll allow you to decrease shutter speed by 2 stops or so.
this is debatable, but some people have said that the f/4 has sharper images, and i tend to agree with that. the only bane is that, some of the f/4s have back-focus issues and some people have bought and returned 2 or 3 lenses to get one that doesn't have that problem. i hear more about it with the EOS-300D/10D more so than the EOS-1D or their full frame dSLRs...i can't say for certain about the 20D.
if you had a choice between the f/2.8 non-IS, and the f/4.0, i would jump on the 4.0. cheaper by about 50% and lighter. the f/4.0 doesn't, i believe, have the weather sealing that the other L lenses do so you should make certain that's something you could live without. i also use the f/4.0 as my walkaround lens. yes, it's a bit large, but it's nothing most people wouldn't be able to get away with after maybe a day or 2 getting used to it. great for composite/panoramic shots, and what not. personally i think it's a VERY versatile lens and has great sharpness.
here are some samples of the f/4 in action as well as one 1.4mb composite shot that you can look at if you wish
big one: http://www.garagespirits.com/images/yosemite/halfdome_pano_small.jpg
hope this helps in your decision
good info and nice shots MelloBoy. I really like that dog picture
thanks for the samples. You've helped me make up my mind. I'm going to be making the purchase in 1-2 weeks.
Haha mini lion
I just bought the F/4 last night and now I'm broke (but that's another story)
Preliminary shooting (at the store - so I could test the lens I was buying) showed no back focus issues on my 20D.
Autofocus tended to hunt in low light - but that was expected.
sharp, sharp, sharp
bokeh is quite nice
heavy on the 20D (although I have a vertical grip w/ 2 batteries on the camera as well)
thus far recommended
now for something to replace the 18-55 kit lens. Maybe a the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX or Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR DI
sigma 18-50 f2.8 ? I have yet to see any samples from it taken by an amateur and I want to see some!
indoor or outdoor?
if it's outdoor and for moderate light, canon ef 17-40mm f/4L would be one i'd look at. for lower light conditions...then well...can't help cause i don't do low light
canon 50mm f/1.8 prime maybe? lol...your feet can act as the zoom
congrats on your buy!
as a future purchase, look into the tripod mount ring for the lens. at its current point, i want to say that the mount is on its limit as to what it can hold w/o breaking on a tripod. the lens mount will help take the stress off the mount. also, the black tripod ring is less expensive than the white one
I already have 50mm f/1.8 prime.
I should have bought the tripod mount ring last night - i wouldn't dare mount this thing on a tripod using the camera/grip mount. Way too front heavy for that I think.
Thanks for the suggestion on the black version - are they of similar build quality?
they're identical....just different part numbers and color. cannon's just trying to make money off L lens owners wanting matching tripod mounts LOL.
f/2.8 is great .
you want me to be your guinea pig.
Let me do some research first. I already know the Sigma 24-70 and Tamron 28-75 get glowing reviews though.
i have a 28-300.
28 isn't wide enough for some inside shots. Youre going to want at least the 24 to get some good shots indoors.
Which 28-300? While I know the Canon is better than any of the others, that big of a zoom entales some probalems. Its such a nice idea to be able to only carry one lens at times though. But for $2k for the Canon, it would have to see a lot of use cmpared to some primes or other L zooms