70-200mm f2.8...... decisions

whitewash

whitewash

Fishy Fingers
Messages
5,307
Edit My Images
Yes
after breaking my cheap **** telezoom on holiday i need to replace it

ive already saved up £250 towards it, and by this time next month will be able to purchase it


now the sigma is in no way a bad lens, and is probably the one ill end up buying, however im at a loose end, if i buy the sigma will i constantly be wanting the canon L lens, in terms of image quality and for the want of IS and also for the fact its a huge wang extension.....

anyone got any thoughts.....

i will also be getting the 2x converter with whichever lens i get to increase its usabilty for sports etc.


i will probably be buying from jessops so if i plump for the canon i can put half on tick for 9months so the price isnt really that much of a problem
 
I've got exactly the same problem, I know I want the 70-200 f2.8 IS, but its alot of cash and its such a beacon for attention that I wonder if I would realize its potential - or whether I should get the f4, I know if I get anything else though I will always be wanting:(

My intention was to just go for the 1.4x and maybe try and get a 100-400 IS L at a later date, having heard that there is supposed to be a noticeable quality drop off with the 2x converter.
 
i need the f2.8 as it will make the lens usable for certain music shots etc, so thats a no brainer for me

im sure i will use its ful potential, as i do such a wide range of stuff with my camera.

not sure about the converters, im sure theres a drop off in quality with both of them, but i dunno the 2x adds what id deam as a useful range to it, where as the 1.4 doesnt seem so useful to me


look im selling it to myself, stop me, oh a oh stop me!
 
whitewash said:
look im selling it to myself, stop me, oh a oh stop me!
Click to expand...

Exactly - its a catch 22, once you want it theres nothing that is going to save you. I keep trying to say to myself its too much, but at the end of the day its better to get it right first time than to have to spend more on a replacement. In all honesty the 2.8 IS is the one to get just a shame its so damn expensive:thinking:
 
I went through this exact quandry a couple of months ago.

In the end I decided to take more notice of getting my ap and shutter speeds right rather than rely on IS as I did with my now redundant 75-300 IS

the sigma ex 70-200 f2.8 is a stonking bit of kit, colour rendition is great, focus speed is equal to that of the canon
 
so now they've released a 'macro' version...whats all that about then? a gimmick, a selling tool...? :shrug: with their own true 1:1 macros in the line-up why slap 'macro' on so many of their lenses?
 
Hello Whitewash

I can ABSOLUTELY recommend the 70-200 f/2,8 IS L as I own one.Now I cannot give you a fair comparison between this and the equivalent Sigma BUT I can tell you this much : if your wallet allows ... go with the L

I personally would be wary of any convertor. I own the 2x and it gives a bit of double blur in the background.I suppose you could sharpen it out of the subject matter you focused onbut rather try before you buy if that is possible.

As for the focal length you can achieve with the convertor:a bit of sacrifice or see if you can live with the convertor's effect.One other thing you might want to keep in mind when you compare Sigma and Canon IS THE WORKING OF THE LENS.
There is now change in exterior dimension on the Canon lens when you zoom in or out.
This becomes important when your push-pull lens starts to suck in dust:cautious:

Anyway hope this helps

Cheers
 
I've not tried the Sigma version but you only have to look here to see that it's pleasing lots of people. I can tell you about my thoughts on how good the 70-200 IS is. I've used it quite a few times and it's a bloody great lens but doesn't actually produce anything you can tell apart from the far cheaper non IS f4 version. In fact the thing that sets them apart the most is the weight.

If I had an open budget, I would change it just to get IS and brighten the viewfinder. When it's all said and done though, I can't see you being dissaponted whichever you chose.
 
Thanx Ian
I was quite taken aback some time ago when I learned that not even all the Canon L glass work that way.
WAS quite interested in the 100-400 and also the 28-300 but will rather get some primes I think.
Now to find the right wallet off course...:thinking:
 
I've just picked up my 70-200 f/2.8 VR Nikkor and very nice it is too.
I now have a spare 80-200 f/2.8 going cheap-ish; very Minty, still boxed.

Go find it in the Classifieds section...NOW!
 
Anton Roland said:
Thanx Ian
I was quite taken aback some time ago when I learned that not even all the Canon L glass work that way.
WAS quite interested in the 100-400 and also the 28-300 but will rather get some primes I think.
Now to find the right wallet off course...:thinking:
Click to expand...

I have the 100-400 and love it to be honest, (although not in a biblical sense) lol The push pull takes an hour or so to get used to, but it produces good sharp images and i doubt you will find many complaints from owners, unless thier IS failed out of warranty ! lol

For the money its pretty flexible, i would love one of each of the 400 f2.8 500 and 600 f4 but i dont have about 14k floating around to buy them at the mo ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top