Canon 70-200mm all of them
- Thread starter Ath$rton
- Start date
- Messages
- 7,109
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My 20D & 70-200 f2.8 have had quite a few soakings (hours in more than drizzle) and they still work.
- Messages
- 7,109
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have the non IS version, I paid about a grand for it 4 years ago (I think).
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
No sure what you really mean by this, but NO. IS, OS, VR are all the same thing, just depends which brand you go for. Image Stabilisation is there to help you out for certain situation. It means for stationary subjects you can shot at a slower shutter speed with IS on (the latest versions are supposed to give you between 3-4 f-stops of light).
But again, I stress for motorsport and wildlife, the 70-200mm is too short in the majority of situations unless you have access to get very close to the action.
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
That depends on your budget.
Zooms..... Sigma 150-500mm or 50-500mm ideal for wildlife, perfect and the cheapest way to 500mm, personally too slow for motorsport. Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS with TC can be quite an adaptable lens, good reviews for motorsport, but top budget. Sigma 100-300mm f4 (if you can find one), fantastic lens, sharp reasonably fast, work ok with 1.4x TC. Canon 100-400mm, still going strong and if you get a good copy, is a great lens.
Primes..... Canon 300mm f4 IS (non IS used), great all rounder and works well with the 1.4x TC, 400mm f5.6 ideal for wildlife, sigma 300mm f2.8 all around the low 4 figure bracket
Bottom of the pile in terms of cost sigma 120-400mm, slightly faster than its bigger brothers. So it really depends on your budget?
Zooms..... Sigma 150-500mm or 50-500mm ideal for wildlife, perfect and the cheapest way to 500mm, personally too slow for motorsport. Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS with TC can be quite an adaptable lens, good reviews for motorsport, but top budget. Sigma 100-300mm f4 (if you can find one), fantastic lens, sharp reasonably fast, work ok with 1.4x TC. Canon 100-400mm, still going strong and if you get a good copy, is a great lens.
Primes..... Canon 300mm f4 IS (non IS used), great all rounder and works well with the 1.4x TC, 400mm f5.6 ideal for wildlife, sigma 300mm f2.8 all around the low 4 figure bracket
Bottom of the pile in terms of cost sigma 120-400mm, slightly faster than its bigger brothers. So it really depends on your budget?
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
Used try mifsuds, camtech, mpb photographic, park camera's, digital depot, ffordes, forsale forums........... even london camera exchange.....
I'm starting to think we've done this thread to hell and back :bonk::bang:
- Messages
- 2,626
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
I have the 70-200mm F2.8IS mk1
and have owned two of the F4 non IS versions I would say sharpness was pretty much the same the reason I got rid of the F4 versions was in low light or indoors it was not much use being unable to get usable shutter speeds
whereas F2.8 really brings home that it makes a lot of difference when the Light goes down
the F4 versions are real nice Lenses but the F2.8 can be used in much more different type of shooting situations
and another point though none of them work what I would call well using a 2x converter pretty poor would be more appropriate though it does work albeit the autofocus slows to a crawl
if your looking at birding or a much better reach - I would not buy any of them get a prime that works great with all the converters
must add though the 1.4x converter works well with pretty much all the 70-200mm Lenses I have used
so I guess its a case of how much cash your prepared to throw at it
my 2p
Chris
and have owned two of the F4 non IS versions I would say sharpness was pretty much the same the reason I got rid of the F4 versions was in low light or indoors it was not much use being unable to get usable shutter speeds
whereas F2.8 really brings home that it makes a lot of difference when the Light goes down
the F4 versions are real nice Lenses but the F2.8 can be used in much more different type of shooting situations
and another point though none of them work what I would call well using a 2x converter pretty poor would be more appropriate though it does work albeit the autofocus slows to a crawl
if your looking at birding or a much better reach - I would not buy any of them get a prime that works great with all the converters
must add though the 1.4x converter works well with pretty much all the 70-200mm Lenses I have used
so I guess its a case of how much cash your prepared to throw at it
my 2p
Chris
- Messages
- 30
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you don't need f2.8 then get the f4 as its much cheaper and half the weight.
The f4IS is a totally redesigned lens over the f4 and optically better. (they didn't just add IS) which is why it's twice the price. Worth it if you can.
F4 IS is so good that you don't really need a tripod until it's nearly dark, but when taking fast moving subjects I usually turn it off.
When I need a faster lens I usually pick my 135 f2 or occasionally borrow a 70-200 f2.8.
When shooting more distant sport/wildlife I use the 400mm f5.6. 200mm is not quite long enough even on a crop frame camera.
If you're shooting sport/wildlife maybe 70-300mm or 100-400 is better?
The f4IS is a totally redesigned lens over the f4 and optically better. (they didn't just add IS) which is why it's twice the price. Worth it if you can.
F4 IS is so good that you don't really need a tripod until it's nearly dark, but when taking fast moving subjects I usually turn it off.
When I need a faster lens I usually pick my 135 f2 or occasionally borrow a 70-200 f2.8.
When shooting more distant sport/wildlife I use the 400mm f5.6. 200mm is not quite long enough even on a crop frame camera.
If you're shooting sport/wildlife maybe 70-300mm or 100-400 is better?
