Which Canon 70-200?

redmonkee

redmonkee

Messages
2,653
Name
PHILIP
Edit My Images
No
Right guys I have decided I am going to keep the 7D to go with my 1D mark III.

I have just sold my 5D for £835 and want to use this money to partly fund a 70-200 to pair up with my 300 f4 for shooting sports.

I have previously owned the 70-200 f4 non IS and it is a fine lens, however I would like the 2.8 to give me better subject isolation.

Now which one would you go for?
 
Go for the IS. IMO, it's best to have it and be able to switch it off than to not have it and not be able to switch it on.
 
redmonkee said:
That's what I was thinking. Do you think the Mark II version is worth the investment?
Click to expand...


I sold my 70-200 2.8 IS as I wasn't delighted with the sharpness wide open at the long end. It is more than usuable, but difficult to get the stunning subject/background seperation you can get with 200 @ f/2.8.

I bought the 200mm 2.8 prime and I'm really happy with it, but if you compare it to the new 70-200 IS MKii, the zoom looks even better.

If you can afford it - I'd go with the new Mkii.

Phil
 
Do you think it would be better getting a weather sealed version of the lens for shooting football.

The reason I ask is that many people seem to think the non IS version is better than the original IS version in terms of sharpness.

I can get the non IS version new for about £900, If I go the mark II route I am going to be paying an extra £1000. this will obviously be sharper, have IS and be weather proofed. Just can't decide if those features are worth an extra £1000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top