| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/24/2011 07:15:49 PM · #1 |
| I've been in and out of stores looking for a 70-200 lens but not sure what to get. I can get a Canon 70-200 f4 brand new, or an IS used. Or should I be getting a Sigma 70-200 OS new? Also I found a 70-200 2.8IS ver.1 used for a good price, but I've heard the f4's have better IQ. |
|
|
|
10/24/2011 07:24:58 PM · #2 |
Decisions decisions...
I say.. Get a nikon ;P
Message edited by author 2011-10-24 23:25:14. |
|
|
|
10/24/2011 08:05:46 PM · #3 |
What are you shooting? If you're going for fast action, low light or portraits, get the f/2.8. For outdoor telephoto reach, better IQ, moderate action and lighter weight, get the f/4 IS. If you're on a budget, the regular f/4 is your lens. The Sigma would be for fast action, low light or portraits on a budget (slightly lower IQ).
Message edited by author 2011-10-25 00:07:04. |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 10:12:22 AM · #4 |
You're shooting a full-frame camera with a very high resolution... you *will* notice IQ differences, so pay close attention to reviews by folks that are shooting with equipment similar to yours. If you are a critical judge of optical performance, as I tend to be, then I would recommend sticking with the Canons. If you do consider the Sigma, see if you can try it out in a store, shoot some test shots wide open and check corner performance. Also, remember that the AF performance of the Sigma may or may not not be as fast as the Canon equivalent.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2011 12:27:45 PM · #5 |
| I've never had a complaint about images from my 70-200 f4L. |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 01:47:55 PM · #6 |
| What do you intend to use it for? It's hard to give advice without knowing this - what works well for one person might not work at all for someone else. |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 03:15:18 PM · #7 |
| Mainly indoor use. I don't expect lots of action but I do have kids. |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 03:22:49 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Kenyork:
Mainly indoor use. I don't expect lots of action but I do have kids. |
then the 2.8 is a bit of a given - although... your MkII does have pretty darn fine high ISO performance... I guess I'd be looking at a comparison of AF performance in low light between the Canon f/4 and the 3rd party f/2.8 - I'm betting it'll end up being pretty much a toss-up, which, if that's the case, I'd buy the L glass and feel secure in the knowledge that I can off it later without much of a depreciation hit.
Message edited by author 2011-10-25 19:23:00. |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 03:40:57 PM · #9 |
Can I ask a ridiculously dumb/naive question: as mentioned on another thread I've also been looking at the 70-200/f4L and I have the opportunity to pick up one at a really decent price. For some reason, the only thing holding me back is that it's a white lens that can attract wanted/unwanted attention from folks around you thinking you're a pro or thinking it's a nice piece of kit to steal.
Has anybody experienced any unwanted attention from people because of the white lens and it's association with price and/or "professionals"? |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 04:51:26 PM · #10 |
| So would you pay $1350 for the C 70-200is f4L, $1600 used C 70-200is f2.8(mk I), or $1600 Sig 70-200os f2.8? |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 04:58:48 PM · #11 |
| I'd say the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is by far the best deal there, not that I've tried out the mark 1, but for indoor I think the 2.8 will really come in useful. The sigma I have no experience with but I hear its autofocus is pretty slow, so it'd rule that one out right away (but get the opinion of someone who's actually used one of course). You should also consider size/weight though, the canon 2.8 is considerably larger and heavier than the f/4 - whether that's an issue or not is down to you. |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 07:50:51 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
Can I ask a ridiculously dumb/naive question: as mentioned on another thread I've also been looking at the 70-200/f4L and I have the opportunity to pick up one at a really decent price. For some reason, the only thing holding me back is that it's a white lens that can attract wanted/unwanted attention from folks around you thinking you're a pro or thinking it's a nice piece of kit to steal.
Has anybody experienced any unwanted attention from people because of the white lens and it's association with price and/or "professionals"? |
Only everybody who owns one..... Sure people gawk at it, but that's why I also own a Canon S95... *shrug* |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 07:51:56 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Kenyork:
So would you pay $1350 for the C 70-200is f4L, $1600 used C 70-200is f2.8(mk I), or $1600 Sig 70-200os f2.8? |
The Canon f 2.8 - no doubt. |
|
|
|
10/26/2011 07:21:27 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
Can I ask a ridiculously dumb/naive question: as mentioned on another thread I've also been looking at the 70-200/f4L and I have the opportunity to pick up one at a really decent price. For some reason, the only thing holding me back is that it's a white lens that can attract wanted/unwanted attention from folks around you thinking you're a pro or thinking it's a nice piece of kit to steal.
Has anybody experienced any unwanted attention from people because of the white lens and it's association with price and/or "professionals"? |
Unwanted? Maybe. Not the hazardous "Hey that looks 'pro' so it must be expensive and I should steal it" kind of unwanted, but more the interrupting "What paper do you work for?" curious bystander kind of attention.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2011 07:22:07 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Kenyork:
So would you pay $1350 for the C 70-200is f4L, $1600 used C 70-200is f2.8(mk I), or $1600 Sig 70-200os f2.8? |
The Canon f 2.8 - no doubt. |
As long as you're OK carrying it. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 05:00:19 PM EDT.
