Got my rented 200mm f2.8.

[M_Six]

Really sharp lens, but man, you need to be far back from anyone to get even a head shot. I need to get out tomorrow and try some wildlife shots.

[immiketoo]

I have experienced that with my 70-200 2.8 but you get used to it and then you want 400.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

I have experienced that with my 70-200 2.8 but you get used to it and then you want 400.

That's the problem. I want reach *and* speed and I can't afford it. The new f2.8 super lenses make me drool, but I'd need to sell the Z4 to afford those.

[immiketoo]

I hear ya. I sucked it up and saved my ass off for something extravagant. Now that I have them, I don't regret it but coughing up the coin was hard. The REAL problem is it's hard to look at a non L lens even though i know that some of them are very good.

[M_Six]

I keep thinking my only request for Xmas this year will be for Amazon gift cards so I can knock a few hundred off and grab the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Or at least the F4 IS, although the need for speed dictates the f2.8

[immiketoo]

Find a sugar mama... or sell platelets or something

[M_Six]

What's a kidney going for these days?

[oneintheory]

what exactly is the point of the 200 2.8?

[Slow_335i]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

what exactly is the point of the 200 2.8?

Sports photography mainly, also used a lot for portrait shots.

Or if you have a subject thats larger and want more of the aperture affect it works great

example i've taken (don't think it was quite 200mm)

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

what exactly is the point of the 200 2.8?

Like I said earlier, I find that when I want to take a distance shot, the 105 end of my 24-105 isn't enough. I suspect that if I had the 70-200 f4 that it would spend most of its time at 200mm. So I'm trying out the 200mm f2.8 to see if I can live with the lack of versatility while taking advantage of the speed. I have it for two weeks, so time will tell. Basically if you want speed at 200mm, your choices are this lens or one of the 70-200 f2.8 lenses, both of which are way pricier. (Of course there's the 200mm f2, but that's in another ballpark entirely.)

[oneintheory]

yeah, buy the 70-200 2.8. otherwise you're limiting yourself to 200mm only.

to the guy who said sports photography...there's no reason to purchase the 200 2.8 instead of the 70-200 2.8 for sports photography. it makes little sense. the ability to zoom is crucial when shooting things like volleyball, basketball, and soccer. really, football too...but i can live with a prime a little more on the football field.

[vachss]

The 200/2.8 was my first L lens, and sharp enough that it ruined me for the consumer zooms I had been using until then. That said, I eventually realized it didn't really work for me. When I wanted a telephoto for wildlife I always wanted something longer. When I wanted a shorter tele for portraits or compressed landscapes I always wanted something shorter. Once I had a 300/4 and a 135/2 I never used it anymore. I hated to sell it cause it was so damn sharp - but that's what I did 5 years ago and I haven't really missed it since.

In short, the 200/2.8 is a fabulous lens - if the focal length works for you. If it doesn't you may just find yourself trying to force the shot to fit the lens rather than trying trying to find the lens that best serves the shot, and like me be better off without it.

[M_Six]

Yeah, I'm not convinced it's right for me. I rented it for two weeks, so I still have plenty of time to play with it. But I can already see where it's really tight trying to shoot anything within 20 feet of you. I think I'll rent the 70-200 F4 IS next to see if the IS can compensate for the higher F-stop.

[Chewy734]

Mark, the IS is nothing short of amazing on the 70-200 f/4L IS.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Mark, the IS is nothing short of amazing on the 70-200 f/4L IS.

That's what I've been discovering with my 24-105. The IS allows me to shoot at 105mm with a shutter speed two stops slower at least and still get keepers. The 200mm at f2.8 needs at least 800 ISO indoors in daylight unless the subject is actually in the sunlight. I've been able to pull off a couple of decent shots at a couple stops slower than 1/FL, but the keeper rate is pretty low. Here's one at 1/80, but I had to crank the ISO to 3200 just to get that speed.

[The1]

from my experience with the 70-200 F4, it's a wonderfull lens, and nice and sharp, the IS is nothing short of incredible at 4stops equivilent.....

that being said, it's the same IS system on the F2.8

I picked up the F2.8, and and selling the F4 to my friend if he decides he wants it (pending at this time)

The weight of the F2.8 is a huge down point, but as i'm a big guy, I never really notice the wight untill i had it to someone half my size then see them almost drop it.

that's when i realize, i don't really need to hand that camera over to anyone to play with.

The F4 was so light and easy to maneuver and is actually shorter in length.

It is too early at this time to really do a comparison between the 2 as i'm still getting used to the newer one, but i find it has a lot of vignetting, which is sometimes fun, but i usually end up pulling most of that out of the pictures.

[Weebl]

Look through your catalog and see how much you would use the 2.8 speed, I personally will take IQ over speed.

[dcstep]

I suggest the 70-200mm f/4L IS and get your speed from the body. 200mm would have been too much for this shot, at 124mm:


Mountain goat posing against a spectacular background. by dcstep, on Flickr

If you get a 70-200mm I can guarantee that you'll be shooting it at all focal lenths. Here's one at 155mm:

[vachss]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I suggest the 70-200mm f/4L IS and get your speed from the body. 200mm would have been too much for this shot, at 124mm:


Mountain goat posing against a spectacular background. by dcstep, on Flickr

Threadjack alert...

Love those pictures of Mt. Evans, Dave. I'm a real fan of Marmots and Pikas from my trips through the Sierra, but I've never run across goats like those. How much gear were you schlepping up to 13,5? I think a trip report's in order.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by vachss

Threadjack alert...

Love those pictures of Mt. Evans, Dave. I'm a real fan of Marmots and Pikas from my trips through the Sierra, but I've never run across goats like those. How much gear were you schlepping up to 13,5? I think a trip report's in order.

LOL, I had my 500mm/7D combo on the Fox Red leather seat to my right, in my M3 car-blind. I was literally shooting out the window, with the 70-200mm/5D2 combo.

Love your dove grey pika. Here's one of mine from yesterday, getting ready for winter:


IMG_2383_DxO7D by dcstep, on Flickr

Here's my fave marmot shot from yesterday, also from the car-blind, with the 500mm:


Meet the Marmots by dcstep, on Flickr

I DID get out of the car. A friend took this pic of me shooting pika and marmot with 700mm (500 plus 1.4x TC):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62844167@N04/6118539676/

[vachss]

I'm totally envious. Marmot/Pika viewing for me in the Sierras has always required at least a 3-5 mile hike in from the trailhead and usually a 1000-2000 foot climb. In other words I'm too much of a wimpy old man to drag my 500 up into their habitat, and have had to make do with the 300/4 + 1.4x. Heck, my hiking friends think I'm nuts just for carrying 7D, 300/4, 1.4x, 10-22, 65MPE and macro flash (12 pound kit) - and they're probably right. Beautiful mountain critters right out the window seems mighty fine to me.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by vachss

I'm totally envious. Marmot/Pika viewing for me in the Sierras has always required at least a 3-5 mile hike in from the trailhead and usually a 1000-2000 foot climb. In other words I'm too much of a wimpy old man to drag my 500 up into their habitat, and have had to make do with the 300/4 + 1.4x. Heck, my hiking friends think I'm nuts just for carrying 7D, 300/4, 1.4x, 10-22, 65MPE and macro flash (12 pound kit) - and they're probably right. Beautiful mountain critters right out the window seems mighty fine to me.

I've got at least two places within 2-hours of my house where I can drive up above 12,000-ft, one is 14,000. Within the same drive I can shoot elk, moose, pika, marmot, big horn sheep, dahl sheep, mountain goats, bear (with extreme luck) and all the usual little critters, right from the road. I often do get out of the car and lug the 500mm and the 70-200mm through the woods on two bodies, but usually only an hour or two at a time.

BTW, I got an invite from Getty Images today and signed up to try them out.

Dave