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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 23, 2006, 7:36 AM   #1
Member
 
stuartmoffat.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 49
Default


Canon EF 60-200 f2.8 L - Versus - Canon 70-200 F4L USM


ok the only things I realy know about these lenses are that the 2.8 Lens is much heavier than the f4 and that the f4 is newer and has the USM..... I realy want the 2.8 for the LOW light shooting bands n stuff....

Opinions/Help needed

thanks
stuartmoffat.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 23, 2006, 8:44 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I'm afraid you have to live with the weight... if you need f/2.8

That's the nature of the beast - f/2.8 is twice the amount of light collected hence the lens need larger optics and metal to contain it in hence the weight. A 200mm f/2.8 prime will be lighter but you'll be stuck at 200mm and several fast primes probably equal to a fast and heavy zoom. Of course you won't be carry them all @ once, but but you won't be missing anyshot by changing lenses in the dark either :-)

-> Your choice :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2006, 12:47 PM   #3
Member
 
stuartmoffat.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 49
Default

Thanks NHL, I have used the f4 version of the 200mm prime before and I realy liked it so I think I will stick with the prime but go for 2.8..... It will be a change for me using a prime as I have never owned one before.

thanks for your help man

stu
stuartmoffat.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2006, 9:48 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 47
Default

I have the 2.8 70-200 (non-IS) and every time I think it's too heavy, I use it and I realize it is by far the best lens I own. The lens is the dictionary definition of a dilemna.
tkrotchko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2006, 7:27 PM   #5
Member
 
stuartmoffat.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 49
Default

I realy want the 2.8 70-200 non IS but its £700 and I realy cant afford that, I have just been offered a 200mm MkII 2.8 prime for £400 think thats worth it?
stuartmoffat.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2006, 8:22 PM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The 70-200 f/2.8 non IS actually outperforms the 200mm f/2.8 prime @ wide open which is what you are going to use most - plus it's a zoom!
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

IMO the weight issue is only minor for the convenience it offers - You're shooting indoor right (200mm might be too long)? :idea:

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 6:39 PM.