Canon 70-200 ii 2.8

J

Jimbosyourman

Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all I'm on the brink of purchasing the above lens. I don't like using flash and the majority of my photos are taken in low light and outdoors. Am I expecting too much from the 2.8 with its 4stop image stabiliser. I take my camera on city breaks . I spent a few days in Paris recently and would love to be able to take good photos on champs élysées at night . At the moment my carry around lenses are a rather old canon 28-135 is and a sigma 85mm 1.4 (excellent bokeh, no is). Would the canon perform better than my sigma ? Incidentally i use a canon 5d ii
 
The 70-200 f/2.8 II has a very solid rep and Im sure that's well deserved even though I don't have one. I do think however that it's quite a big lens for a walkabout.
 
GeeJay57 said:
The 70-200 f/2.8 II has a very solid rep and Im sure that's well deserved even though I don't have one. I do think however that it's quite a big lens for a walkabout.
Click to expand...
I agree on the weight issue... Perhaps the 24-105 or the 24-70 II which is lighter than its predecessor would be lighter and a tad more versatile, partic for the landscape side of things - I now have all3 of the lenses and my new walkabout is going to be the 24-70. Good luck with your decision. There are cash back deals I think on most of their lenses but not sure when the promotion ends.
 
Having an additional 2 stops of IS will allow slower shutter speeds but may just lead you into another problem.....subject motion blur. Have you considered approaching it a different way and getting a body that will allow 2 stops more usable Iso? Updating your MkII to a MkIII is possibly a cheaper option with no weight/bulk increase and you can maintain your current shutter speeds.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Having an additional 2 stops of IS will allow slower shutter speeds but may just lead you into another problem.....subject motion blur. Have you considered approaching it a different way and getting a body that will allow 2 stops more usable Iso? Updating your MkII to a MkIII is possibly a cheaper option with no weight/bulk increase and you can maintain your current shutter speeds.

Bob
Click to expand...

I have owned both and to be fair, ISO performance to me was remarkably similar, the AF was obviously worlds better. You got about a stop better ISO in video though.
 
Bob thanks a lot I hadn't really considered either of these points. Although the majority of my photos is taken of still objects every now and again I do take portrait so I could get subject blur. This is a very good point. However surely two stops more ISO will lead to more grain.
On a city break to New York I bought a carbon fibre tripod only to find it impractical to set up in busy crowded locations , on top of this by the time you've set up a lot of the time the moment is lost. I suppose there is more that one way to solve the problem but each solution has its compromises. I did also consider the 24-70 and at some point would definitely want to add this lens to my collection. However as my 35-135 still produces ok if not brilliant photos I thought I would get quite a bit more from the 70-200.
I suppose my biggest problem being that because I'm just a keen amateur and don't earn from my photos I have to be careful how I spend the money.
Weight is definitely an issue too as I've had to put my kit bag on a diet recently. From taking 3 lenses and bulky flash I'm now down to two and no flash. (Shame as I love my 12-24 sigma, but you can't carry everything ).
 
Jimbosyourman said:
...... However surely two stops more ISO will lead to more grain.
Click to expand...
The two stops I referenced were the improvement for "the same grain"...improvement in noise performance with newer technology.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top