I currently own the 70-200 non-IS lens, and would agree that it is a fine lens. But yes, for long periods of hand held shooting, it gets to be a bit much. Someone recommended the 70-200 f4 IS as an option, and I have Canon sending one of those as a loaner, along with a 24-70 f2.8. They are scheduled to arrive the second week in January. I'm backing away from the 24-105 based on all the feedback, and I do appreciate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix01
I'm wondering if you've considered the 70 - 200 f/2.8 IS?
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Do you have a pro shop / camera store you can visit and actually try one or more lenses on your camera? Take your laptop and judge sharpness for yourself.
I find the 28-135 zoom is excellent on my 1.6x camera, and Jerry seems to indicate it's pretty good on a full frame model... Why not give it a try?
Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but it's kind of a case of be careful what you wish for. Pro shooters got a full frame camera with almost too much resolution and now lenses are the weak link in the system. I guess it certainly depends on what the final output size of your print is going to be. If it's a magazine page, an 8x12 or sized for web resolution, sharpening and downsampling the file to print size will yield results sharp corner-to-corner.
Considering the usage (people in lifestyle or sports types of situations) you've described, I'm wondering if you've considered the 70 - 200 f/2.8 IS?
Unless you're particularly sensitive to weight and overall lens size, it's just about ideal on a full-frame sensor body. . .
Unless, indeed!
Our use of both the EF 24-105 mm f/4L IS and the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS is on "1.6x" format cameras (currently an EOS 40D). But I would like to emphasize that the difference in weight and overall envelope size of the two lenses is enormous.
I principally use the 70-200 in situations in which I am either shooting from a seat (in sporting events) and/or have the benefit of a tripod or monopod to support it. (Of course I'm an old guy, without the physical stamina really needed to handle the 70-200, which Carla calls "the milk bottle".) And I'm afraid that more than once, in a "shooting from a seat" situation, I have given the patron in front of me a good conk on the noodle with the "child-frightening" hood of the 70-200 (as one reviewer described it).
I say this not to discourage users from taking on the 70-200 f/2.8, which is a wonderful lens, but to make sure nobody thinks that physically handling one is a trivial job. I could certainly never think of it as my "walkaround lens".
I switched to Canon a few years ago with a 5D. The 70-200 2.8 IS was one of the first lenses I bought. Love it... but it is a monster. Last year I got the f4 version specifically for a trip where reduced size/weight was a necessity. It's at least as good as the 2.8 version and MUCH more user friendly to lug around all day.
funny you bring up the "child frightening" nature of the 2.8 version. I did a rare (for me) session with a small child yesterday. I reached for the f4 version for exactly that reason. Far less intimidating to the little crumb crusher.
Linear Mode
