[BillLee]

Originally Posted by The1

how are you liking it??? everything i've read says it's great, but I'd rather hear it straight from someone...

I'm also wanting the 85 1.8.... but i can't seem to find any of those around anywhere.

besides, i only need one toy at a time untill i learn how to use them

I'm liking it so far, good walk around lens for me. I miss being able to shoot from afar though, i love shooting at 135mm and up. So i'm looking for a used 70-200mm, after that i'll upgrade to a full frame camera then gonna start collecting some prime lens.

[The1]

Originally Posted by BillLee

I'm liking it so far, good walk around lens for me. I miss being able to shoot from afar though, i love shooting at 135mm and up. So i'm looking for a used 70-200mm, after that i'll upgrade to a full frame camera then gonna start collecting some prime lens.

lol, the switch to FF takes some getting used to, you'll almost find a 70-200 very short on a full frame after using it on a crop...

I hated my 70-200 F4 IS for a long time because of the lack of reach. I've gotten used to it now however and it's making its way into my routine usage a bit more.

[Chewy734]

for used lenses, also check out http://www.keh.com

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

for used lenses, also check out http://www.keh.com

yeah, been starting to troll those pages a bit..... The used 1D bodies are looking kinda fun however not necessary for my level of photography...

[Weebl]

Coming from the 5/7D bodies you would hate the 1D. 240K pixel screens suck.Especially when you get older and need bifocals.
I thought about the 1D and then realized it would have to be a MkIV to get the new screen and that will never happen. New or CPO

[TL]

Originally Posted by BillLee

So glad i got my 24-70mm f/2.8 a few months ago for $1,800. Just checked and it's now $2,049! Wish i got the 70-200m f/2.8 as well.

dam you getting serious.....wished i bought it too but i went with the 80-200mm instead.

[Weebl]

You have the drainpipe?

[TL]

Originally Posted by Weebl

You have the drainpipe?

yea this thing is a tank


Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D by GQjai, on Flickr

[The1]

it's a lovely beast.... Wishing had the canon version in the 2.8... oh well, on the wish list for when production resumes again in Japan

[Weebl]

I was thinking of the Canon version aka "The Magic Drainpipe" it is supposed to be legendary and very few are around since it is so old.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

it's a lovely beast.... Wishing had the canon version in the 2.8... oh well, on the wish list for when production resumes again in Japan

Consider the 70-200mm f/4L IS seriously. It's IQ is as good as the f/2.8, it's way lighter and smaller and it costs considerably less. With the excellent high-ISO performance of today's bodies, it's becoming the preferred choice of those that need to carry it on a second body as they lug a beastly 500mm or 600mm through the woods, into the swamps and up the mountains to shoot wildlife and birds in the wild.

There's a place for an f/2.8 in the kit of many, like a wedding photographers, but it's unneeded bulk and weight for many (most?) of us.

Dave

[The1]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Consider the 70-200mm f/4L IS seriously. It's IQ is as good as the f/2.8, it's way lighter and smaller and it costs considerably less. With the excellent high-ISO performance of today's bodies, it's becoming the preferred choice of those that need to carry it on a second body as they lug a beastly 500mm or 600mm through the woods, into the swamps and up the mountains to shoot wildlife and birds in the wild.

There's a place for an f/2.8 in the kit of many, like a wedding photographers, but it's unneeded bulk and weight for many (most?) of us.

Dave

I have the F4, I love it, but if i'm shooting people with it, that wider depth of field is a bit annoying. That's my only complaint about the F4. It's auto focus is faster then anything else i have, and the IS is better then everything else too. I just wish i could get the DoF a little narrower.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Consider the 70-200mm f/4L IS seriously. It's IQ is as good as the f/2.8, it's way lighter and smaller and it costs considerably less. With the excellent high-ISO performance of today's bodies, it's becoming the preferred choice of those that need to carry it on a second body as they lug a beastly 500mm or 600mm through the woods, into the swamps and up the mountains to shoot wildlife and birds in the wild.

There's a place for an f/2.8 in the kit of many, like a wedding photographers, but it's unneeded bulk and weight for many (most?) of us.

Dave

Dave, would you say the IS version is worth the extra cash over the non-IS? It's about double the cost.

[Chewy734]

Mark, if you find yourself frequently shooting 150mm+ and don't carry around a tripod, then yes IS is worth it. Otherwise, no. That's my opinion on it.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Mark, if you find yourself frequently shooting 150mm+ and don't carry around a tripod, then yes IS is worth it. Otherwise, no. That's my opinion on it.

So full zoom handheld is probably not going to happen w/o IS, eh?

[Chewy734]

depending on the lighting conditions, I can't hold it still at 200mm+ to take a clear shot without IS. Maybe you can prop your camera on something, but it's a PITA.

For example, I couldn't take a pic of the moon without a tripod unless I had IS on... or any of those basketball game pics I took for that matter.

[Weebl]

Mark,
Take a look at your portfolios ( money and pictures), if you tend to take a lot of slower speed or long distance photos then you probably would.
With IS the 300 F4 it is invaluable when I go indoors to shoot HS musicals and the orchestra. Outside with birds and jets not so much. I'll shoot jets in flight with a 1.4x and no IS. Hard but possible.
The other portfolio dictates 2.8 or 4 and the wife trumps all. For me it was going to be 70-200 F4IS or 300 F4IS and I needed the length more than zoom. I do not regret it and eventually I will get one of the versions of the 70-200 IS but a wide angle or body will come first.
The 70-200 F4 is very slightly sharper.

[The1]

if all your shots are going to me in daylight, you can get away without it. but if you find you're shooting below let's say 1/320 at 200mm you're going to be on that fine line of hand holdability. But of course, if you bump up to say 400ISO, you might be able to get away with it, but on the T1i, you might be starting to defeat the purpose of the high quality lens if you start to add noise by going too high on the ISO

The IS is a nice feature to have especially when heading into later in the afternoon light and you still want a large DoF, then it's almost necessary.

if you're using the hand canon for portrait work, and you always have flashes around, you can do without the IS

the golden rule for shutter speed and focal length is 1 over the focal length, so if you're shooting 200mm you'll want at the very least 1/200th of a second. even then, you're going to be on a very fine line for blur or no blur. When i have my 400mm on, and i'm not set up in a good standing position, i can barely put the single point autofocus on something without needing the IS to help me out.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Dave, would you say the IS version is worth the extra cash over the non-IS? It's about double the cost.

Agree with what's said so far. I also shoot this at night at its wide end and find the IS useful at like 1/25th at 70mm. Surely at the long end it's very useful.

Lots of people do shoot the non-IS successfully, but you need to bump the ISO up and the SS accordingly.

[M_Six]

Thanks guys. Food for thought. Thing is, if I had $1000 to spend, I'd be upgrading to a 60D. I really need to find a side gig for play money.

[The1]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Thanks guys. Food for thought. Thing is, if I had $1000 to spend, I'd be upgrading to a 60D. I really need to find a side gig for play money.

Just remember, the camera body is the most disposable part of your entire setup, everything else will last 10 years and more, bodys come and go.

Invest in some good glass, and make the most of what you have. then when it really truely is time to get rid of the body, you'll be ready.

bodys recycle every 2-3 years and then are antiques, the real investment is the one that lasts. If you try to keep up, they will kill you. So make sure you do it right when you're ready.

[leemik]

Originally Posted by The1

Invest in some good glass,

This man speaks of the truth! spend your money on good glass.. good glass rarely depreciates in value much