Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 7, 2004, 7:48 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default Re: Tripod Socket

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjosker
Would it have been better had they included the tripod ring and increased the price by $100?
I would find that equally disappointing.[/quote]

Somehow, I figured that would be your reply. 'nuff said.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2004, 7:56 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Henry, what you need to do is what I have done, tested both lenses. If you do, you will find that the F4 holds it's own. So, why pay 1000 dollars more for the 2.8?
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2004, 8:16 PM   #23
Member
 
dougsmit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 90
Default Weigh in

[quote="dougsmit
I also disagree that this lens is light. OK, it is light compared to the huge f/2.8 but it is quite a solid piece. You handhold it and let the camera dangle behind rather than the other way around. Some people buy the accessory battery pack to improve the balance of the camera with heavier lenses. If you have only used the kit lens or one of Canon's plastic amateur zooms, you will not be calling it 'light'. [/quote]

Not wishing to mislead anyone, the note that set off the tirade said nothing about the f/4 weighing as much as the f/2.8 but simply that it was much heavier than the kit lens or amateur zooms.
Figures from Canon's site:
70-200 f/4L 705g.
75-300 f4-5.6 III 480g.
55-200 f/4.5-5.6 II 310g.
kit lens 190g.
Rebel body 560g.

The lens balances well on the ring especially when shooting verticals since the point of attachment remains under the lens rather than off to the side as required when tilting a tripod head to shoot verticals. No one is suggesting that the weight is excessive or not necessary for a lens of this quality. Certainly it is a lightweight compared to the 2.8 or other white lenses but it still weighs more than the body and feels substantial in hand (unlike the plastic lenses to which I compared it). Sorry you felt it necessary to be 'rude' (your word).
dougsmit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2004, 8:48 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Hey, I own this lens, I use it, so don't tell me this or that about it. I use it daily.

Accept what I say from practice or listen to others who don't know.

End of matter
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2004, 12:45 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normcar
Henry, what you need to do is what I have done, tested both lenses. If you do, you will find that the F4 holds it's own. So, why pay 1000 dollars more for the 2.8?
It is $1000 more for the F2.8 with IS, and not the 2.8. To answer your question of why? Because I love the shallow DOF of F2.8. I also love to be able to take handheld pictures (as I did today) at full zoom at 1/60 (some people manage less depending on how shaky you are). That is the IS working for me.

All this doesn't mean the F4 'does not hold its own'. It does, for some of the reasons you pointed out.

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2004, 1:07 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normcar
Henry, what you need to do is what I have done, tested both lenses. If you do, you will find that the F4 holds it's own. So, why pay 1000 dollars more for the 2.8?
Norm, I did try all 3 lenses. The f/4 is a great lens. The best appeal of the lens is that it is lighter and obviously it costs less.

Why spend $1000 more for the f/2.8 IS? For me, the answer was that the f/2.8 receives twice as much light during focusing, it does give me one more stop for those times that I need it, and the IS is simply INCREDIBLE! Believe me, I wrestled with the idea of spending $1650 for the lens. I would probably not have done it for just the 1 stop difference. Reviewing the pictures that I took with the 3 lenses convinced me. There's something about taking a picture at 1/8 sec and having it be an acceptable shot (not that I would typically do that!).

Another reason that I took under consideration was the ability to add a TC to the lens and still have reasonable headroom with light.

As far as the heaviness of the f/2.8 -- yeah, it is...but not to the point that I can't handhold it or trek through the woods with it.

I had it out today and saw a hawk roosting in a tree off the road. I stopped the car and tried to shoot from the road (couldn't get closer than because it was private property). Even with the 1.4 TC attached, I couldn't get an acceptable print after enlarging and cropping. Visions of the Sigma 300-800mm dancing in my head! :lol:
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2004, 8:47 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Oh, I forgot this reason (thanks for the mental nudge ohenry.)

The 10D (and I assume the 300D) have a cross sensor (detect both horizontal and vertical contrast for AF) only when you have f2.8. So not only will you have more light, you also have better AF ability. The pro cameras (1D, 1D2, 1D-Mark II) have full cross sensors that work at f4.

Eric

ps. The 10D's cross sensor is only the center one.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2004, 8:48 AM   #28
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Here's the best kept secret: If you have to add a tripod collar to the 70-200 f/4L, you might as well buy the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO HSM for the same "total" price, the Sigma comes with the quick-disconnect tripod collar after all (and a fitted lens case)! :lol: :lol: :lol:

For a person who wants the Bokeh of an f/2.8, obviously an f/4 wouldn't cut it, and he's well aware of the weight. But then that same person would rather carry lightweight TC than an additional 300mm f/4 or/and a 400 f/5.6... Just my 2c
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2004, 6:06 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL
For a person who wants the Bokeh of an f/2.8, obviously an f/4 wouldn't cut it, and he's well aware of the weight. But then that same person would rather carry lightweight TC than an additional 300mm f/4 or/and a 400 f/5.6... Just my 2c
I reasoned that way, and got the 1.4x TC. But I'm not happy with the image quality that comes out of my 70-200L plus 1.4x TC. At least not until I stop it down to F6.7 or even F8. At F4 it is simply not acceptable at all. I'm tempted to chalk it up to a bad TC, but who knows.

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2004, 8:42 PM   #30
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI several samples of f/4 (and f/5.6):

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM with 1.4 teleconverter
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS with 1.4xTC

Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX APO HSM + 2x APO
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS + EF 2x II

8)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:16 AM.