A&P what should my next lens be? v.Canon Crew. 200mm

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by White Stormy, Dec 28, 2007.

  1. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,489
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    right now I have a 30D with a 50/1.4 which is ballerific and a tamron 28-75/2.8 which has been awesome.. but compared to the sharpness of the 50 is shit.

    I'm thinkin about either a 200/2.8L or a 70-200/4L
    200 http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=37&sort=4&cat=2&page=1
    70-200 http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=4&cat=27&page=1

    my brother has an 18-55 that I could use if I need the width, so if I got the 70-200 I'd be tempted to sell the tamron and only keep one zoom.

    ideally, either would only be a stopover lens until I can get a 70-200/2.8L IS, but at $500-600 that's not a bad deal. so you guys have any experience with either? both?
     
  2. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,489
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    duh, I'd like to shoot some night sports stuff. football games, etc

    but it'll mostly be used outside in daylight
     
  3. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    if you want to shoot sports at night you'll most probably want the 2.8. tried looking for a used one? oh and swap your tamron for a 17-50 2.8
     
  4. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    I loved my 70-200F4, it was non-IS though :o

    if you do get the 70-200F4 I would try to get the IS version

    IS on telephoto lenses > *
     
  5. Jhegro

    Jhegro wtf is a jhegro?

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    why not the 70-200 f/2.8 NON-IS? a bit pricier than the 2, but its a great lens minus the fact that it lacks IS. but it is slightly sharper than the IS version.
     
  6. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    I'd rather have an F4 IS then a 2.8nonIS

    but that's just me :hs:
     
  7. ace3

    ace3 mouthify my wang.

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    122,610
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Omaha NebrASSka Posts: 15
    i have the 70-200 f4 IS and it's tits.
     
  8. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,489
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    why not just skip straight to the 70-200/2.8 IS?

    well I can't afford it, that's why.
     
  9. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,489
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    :cool: pics?
     
  10. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,489
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    everyone seems to be talking about the 70-200.. you guys just don't like prime lenses? or is the 70-200/4 really THAT baller?
     
  11. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,489
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    I can't afford IS right now either way, so I'm between these two. would you NEED a tripod at 200mm to get a clear shot?
     
  12. ace3

    ace3 mouthify my wang.

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    122,610
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Omaha NebrASSka Posts: 15
    the IS is soooooo worth it. i'd keep saving & get that over the non-IS. :o

    200mm @ f/4:
    [​IMG]



    this is from the 70-200 2.8IS (at 190mm). love this shot
    [​IMG]
     
  13. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    the 70-200s are much more useful than the 200. at around 70mm they thake great upper body portrait shots too.
     
  14. Spurious

    Spurious New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas Bans: 5
    WTF sona?
     
  15. ace3

    ace3 mouthify my wang.

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    122,610
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Omaha NebrASSka Posts: 15
    que?
     
  16. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    200 is too short for football imo. 300+ and you'll be able to get good close up w/o cropping. With a 200mm, you'll probably have to crop the image.
     
  17. Spurious

    Spurious New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas Bans: 5
    Prison Break :o
     
  18. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,489
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    on a 30D, 200m ~ 320mm
     
  19. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    I know. I'm not a noob. My 70 200 on the 20D doesn't have enough reach on the larger fields (field hockey, soccer, football).
     
  20. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,489
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    ahh ok
     
  21. GregFarz78

    GregFarz78 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    64,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    70-200 f4 IS with 1.4 tc

    I thought about getting the 200 f2.8 prime but I'm going to go with the combo above and save up and get the 300 f4 IS prime for wildlife/birds
     
  22. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    no you don't need it, but it makes life a lot easier

    I took this with my non-IS 70-200F4 @ 200mm
    [​IMG]
     
  23. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    :werd:


    thats why I upgraded to the 100-400 and never looked back :o even with the 1.4x TC 200mm wasn't quite enough
     
  24. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    f/5.6 max aperture + night sports = failure
     

Share This Page