To bokeh or not to..

turnpike

turnpike

Messages
243
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
No
Anyone got any thoughts or suggestions regarding staying with canon primes in this day and age? In particular ..

I'm seriously looking at a 70-200mm but can't afford the f/2.8 and don't really want to stand out with the big white and the weight. I started checking EXIF on lots of other togs online 70-200mm shots and they are nearly always at 200mm. I've already got a 135mm prime (and a 1.4 tc) on my 7D and I was starting to think about having a flexible travel set up of 17-55 and 70-200 but I can't convince myself that you really need a zoom. People always seem to have the 70-200 at 200, in which case maybe they actually needed a 300mm.

All my existing lens are 2.8 or lower (not including ultra wide) and I really do rate subject isolation highly.

I'm interested mainly in street shots and some wildlife (but not worried about very long range e.g. > 400/500).

Hmm I think I won't be buying anything today as I've talked myself out of it :)

Cheers,
turnpike
 
Last edited:
turnpike said:
Anyone got any thoughts or suggestions regarding staying with canon primes in this day and age? In particular ..

I'm seriously looking at a 70-200mm but can't afford the f/2.8 and don't really want to stand out with the big white and the weight. I started checking EXIF on lots of other togs online 70-200mm shots and they are nearly always at 200mm. I've already got a 135mm prime (and a 1.4 tc) on my 7D and I was starting to think about having a flexible travel set up of 17-55 and 70-200 but I can't convince myself that you really need a zoom. People always seem to have the 70-200 at 200, in which case maybe they actually needed a 300mm.

All my existing lens are 2.8 or lower (not including ultra wide) and I really do rate subject isolation highly.

I'm interested mainly in street shots and some wildlife (but not worried about very long range e.g. > 400/500).

Hmm I think I won't be buying anything today as I've talked myself out of it :)

Cheers,
turnpike
Click to expand...

So why not look at the 70-200 F4 IS ?

Light, great quality and gives you flexibility especially for street...
 
Or why not look at the canon 200mm F2.8L, it can be picked up for reasonable money (under £600), no zoom but it will cover the wildlife end and you could of course use a TC on it if you needed more reach.

The money saved could be used to upgrade your body to a 50D
 
Last edited:
are you really sure you don't need 70-200 f2.8?

i've got the non is version (about £1000), in terms of the usefulness it's the best, most flexible lens i have. it's very sharp, so much so i just wouldn't bother with a 2.8 prime in that range. i use it at 200mm at lot of the time for portraits, not because i need the extra reach but because at 200mm due to magnification the background is diffuse and the foreground/background separation is really apparent.

all with the 70-200 at f2.8

5187384749_477516860e_b.jpg

5166927799_e9efbda60d_b.jpg

5166928485_3187a58488_b.jpg

5132743347_7c85a030d6_b.jpg

5132747581_2676388abc_b.jpg

5133350288_b1c779a9f5_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Stunning photos cuthbert :)

You have a 5dii though...
 
200mm f/4 and 2.8 look very similar - there will be more difference at 70mm. These zooms are as sharp as an L prime.

If you want less DOF - FF / 5D would be just as significant as f4 vs f2.8.

I have a collection of primes and they get use for portaiture, but my 70-200mm f4 is well trusted for any longer shots, or anything that can't be set up.
 
daugirdas said:
200mm f/4 and 2.8 look very similar - there will be more difference at 70mm. These zooms are as sharp as an L prime.
Click to expand...

I'd say there is a noticable difference between these two, both re very good lenses but the bokeh on the f2.8 is significantly better. I love the 70-200 f2.8 it's just as sharp as the 200 f2.8 prime I had before, but the prime is smaller, lighter and less conspicious...

Here are a few shots from my 70-200 at f2.8.

4979727231_9f4fed941b_b.jpg


4979726989_44cf9624a6_b.jpg


4989996517_24be6ddc48_b.jpg
 
MIP: Looking at my photos I nearly always go for shallow depth and subject isolation. I'm thinking the f/4 wouldn't give me that. Maybe it would at 200mm but not through from 70 so much.

Ian: Yeah the 200mm f/2.8 looks good. Right now I'm just not sure I want to go flexible with zooms or stick with primes. I guess I'll end up with both and use depending on situation.

Mark: My heart says you're right :) I'm very close to going for the 70-200 f/2.8 but without IS. Great shots.

I hadn't really thought about the 5D giving me better subject isolation/background blur than my 7d. I will end up with a full frame and still keep the 7d one day but not for a while.

Thanks for all the comments, it really helps. I'm going to hire the f/2.8 and see if I can handle the weight and stand out white. I'm starting to focus on animals and people so I expect I might need the flexibility of zooms, but I don't want to give up my background blur.

I didn't realise I had to subsribe to my own thread, hence the late reply.
 
Just a quick update. After renting an f/2.8 no IS (from the brilliant lensesforhire.co.uk), and deciding the size and weight was worth it, I went all out and got the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (which I know is slightly heavier again). I won't be looking at my bank balance for some time... Thanks all :)

5243590295_beaf8f58b3_z.jpg


5242022420_3da8c92df8_z.jpg


My Flickr (p.s. weirdly my sig link doesn't work unless i put the link in the message body).
 
Last edited:
great photos Carl, enjoy your new lens and it's only money anyway!
 
Cheers Mark. Yeah exactly my sentiment :) I absolutely love my primes but I think I'll probably sell the 135mm f/2.0 L now, as the zoom is going to do for me based on what I'm shooting and how often I actually get out to do so.
 
I looked at that, it's a great lens from the sounds of it, but I'm interested in moving targets not that far away from me, so I just wouldn't have time to change lens when things moved around.
 
You made the right choice for you carl, thats the most important thing.


In all honesty I only threw the 200mm L in as a lot seem to forget its still there and damn cheap for L glass.
 
turnpike said:
Just a quick update. After renting an f/2.8 no IS (from the brilliant lensesforhire.co.uk), and deciding the size and weight was worth it, I went all out and got the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (which I know is slightly heavier again). I won't be looking at my bank balance for some time... Thanks all :)

5243590295_beaf8f58b3_z.jpg


5242022420_3da8c92df8_z.jpg


My Flickr (p.s. weirdly my sig link doesn't work unless i put the link in the message body).
Click to expand...

Makes me want to pay a visit to the Zoo and give my 70-200 a proper work-out. (y)
 
iancandler said:
You made the right choice for you carl, thats the most important thing.


In all honesty I only threw the 200mm L in as a lot seem to forget its still there and damn cheap for L glass.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The 200mm L looks great if 200 fixed works for you. I did it serious consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top