anyone have this? my hubby can "buy" it for me with some reward points he has, but i'm wondering if i'd get that much use out of it...??
any reviews would be helpful! i can read through the reviews at b&h but love hearing from people i actually "know"! ;)
currently use my 24-70mm L 2.8 ALOT. but it doesnt really stretch far enough for my son's sporting events...
I have it Susan, and it's an OK lens. You won't get tack sharpness from it, but it's good in a pinch when you want something that is far away. You just have to let go of some of the imperfections of blur or just muddy photos when you use it for the advantage of getting close ups. Here, I'll grab some photos that I took with it and you can see what I mean.
This post was mostly shot with that lens. The sloths? They were SUPER far away.
thank you ally! i'm thinking that this would be a great vacation type lens, like what you used it for.
Q: you said in your post that yours is the 70-300... ? is that true? i'm looking at the one that only goes up to 200mm... wondering if it's the same lens that you have or not...?
I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and the one thing I don't like about it is it is HEAVY! I love the pictures I get with it but it is a load to lug with you on a hike (especially on our trip to the Great Wall).
According to the exit data on her pictures... she has the 70 -300... I think there are several different lens at that focal length.
I don't have the specific lens that you asked about, but I do have lenses in that focal lenth ( a couple of 100 mm lenses and a 200mm lens) For me I love shooting at around 100 it makes for great portraits if you are out doors, also they are great focal lengths to take to the zoo and I also love the longer focal lengths at the beach. And yes it is particularly helpful at sporting events, although may still not be long enough.
There are apparently (or used to be I haven't checked recently) two 70-200 lenses one with image stabilisation and one with out... as I am sure you have read the one with image stabalisation is supposed to be awesome. The other lens is better than the old 70 -300 but supposedly not as good as the 70-200 f4 IS. Image stabilisation is really useful at 200mm because you have to use fast shutter speeds because of the length of the lens.... but then if you are shooting sports you typically use fast shutter speeds anyway. If you can the image stabilisation version is better. There have been many instances when I wished that my 200mm lens had image stabilisation.... and oh how I love it on my 100 that does have image stabilisation.
yeah its the non IS lens and the one at f4.0 - which is why im torn... essentially it's "free to me" though, so....???
Oh - you know, you're right... that was the 70-300 (with IS)... it was an upgrade from my original telephoto - the 70-200 non-IS (which I did not like AT ALL). Sorry!
But is THIS the one you are looking at???
It's non-IS, but it's a fixed aperture AND L series? BETTER than the one I have I think... (about 100.00 more expensive than mine, not much considering)
In my opinion a lens is better than no lens at all....
I have it and I like it. I do have trouble holding it still so I don't always get the most in focus pictures but that is my fault! I like the focal length and actually some of my favorite pictures of my daughter were taken with that lens.
My advice? It's GREAT glass, it's L series. Most of your shots with the lens will be taken outdoors. So, not going all the way to the 2.8 is a non-issue because indoors, you have the option of the 24-70 2.8... The 4.0 is what you want anyway for action/sports/outdoor stuff.
Ok - so it's heavy. You're getting a FREE L series lens - splurge on a monopod and then it's a non-issue that it's not the IS lens. Besides, if you are used to the weight of the 24-70 (also non IS), this won't be much worse.
I have the one Ally linked and it is great. The non IS has not been an issue at all for me. I have used it at sports events and hikes and i have not missed the IS at all. The pictures are super sharp and since I use it outside the 4.0 is lower than I have ever needed to go.
I say go for it, next to my 10-22 it is my favorite outdoor, non people lens.
@scrapally - totally what i was thinking - this is just going to be outdoorsy stuff - sports and travel im thinking - MAYBE some session shooting (for the right style session) depending on how much i like it.
@ms.snickerdoodle - THANK YOU - so good to hear the IS wasnt anything you thought you missed - that was kind of worrying me.
@paperandpetals - thanks you for sharing your experience with it too!
ok i'm going to tell him to order it. woohoo! ;)
i have the F4 70-200I S USM and I prefer it with the IS OFF!
I so wanted the F2.8 version but because I use it at in daylight only, I can settle for a tad less bokeh but superior sharp shots. Get it!
I have the 2.8L and love it. If it's essentially free, GO FOR IT! I had read a lot of reviews about how heavy it is, and to be honest I had no trouble with it whatsoever. You will love the ability to capture the action without interfering. I think you'll love it!
I agree that if it's an L lens then it must be pretty good. Also, I would use a monopod to hold it steady since there's no IS. I've seen a few parents at the soccer games use monopods and I think I may get one too. If most of your shots will be outdoors, then go for it!
I would love a 70-200 for portraits. The compression at higher focal points is so flattering! A lot of photogs on the photovision dvd's use a 70-200 for their portraits.