|
|
 | 10 June 2012 14:09 |
| bradjammin Photographer This member has been suspended This member has been reset to pending Location United Kingdom Armagh Portadown | Hey all. Know this has probably been on before but here goes. Just trying to find out if it's worth spending the extra money to go up the range in the l series 70-200 lenses. I do plenty of portrait and portfolio work mostly outdoors, but I'm keen to start covering events and fashion shows etc. I know I can get the f4 for relatively cheap but will I notice a lot of difference going for the IS? And if I'm going to spend that kind of money am I better putting more for a 2.8? Or the IS version? Agh! Finding it hard to make the decision. Thoughts? |
 | 10 June 2012 14:16 |
|
| RedChecker Photographer  Location United Kingdom Buckinghamshire Stoke Mandeville | If you'll only ever work in a studio get the f4 If you work in natural light the extra stop of the f2.8 is handy and gives you a little more creative oportunity by makes the lens considerably more hefty compared to the f4. With IS, while it isn't essential, you'll struggle to live without it once you've had it and again, is only of any use for natural light work. |
|
| If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit | ||
 | 10 June 2012 14:20 |
| profilepictures Photographer  Location United Kingdom Suffolk Bury St Edmunds | The non IS f2.8 is a beautiful thing, the F4 is sharp and fast as hell but needs that extra light, which may or may not be a problem for you? F2.8 covers gigs, wildlife, models, portrait and weddings or events well enough to be the perfect compromise in my opinion. It's also cool for video sometimes. |
| 10 June 2012 16:16 |
| bradjammin Photographer This member has been suspended This member has been reset to pending Location United Kingdom Armagh Portadown | Cheers lads. I know that it's L series glass, so none of them are likely to be crap. I mostly shoot my fashion stuff with off camera flash but as the work expands I'd like to have the gear to cope too |
 | 10 June 2012 18:31 |
| Mcroshaw Photographer  Location United Kingdom Berkshire | I have the IS 2.8 and it is a great general purpose lens that blows the socks off any other lens I've used..but I use it for shooting in low light a lot. I also use it on studio shoots when I've got plenty of space. Its the lens I choose when I absolutely have to get the shot first time. |
| 11 June 2012 18:21 |
| bradjammin Photographer This member has been suspended This member has been reset to pending Location United Kingdom Armagh Portadown | So the next question is... who's selling one? |
| 11 June 2012 21:06 |
| FocalCapture Photographer  Location United Kingdom Wiltshire Swindon | The other option.... Is to get a Sigma EX DG APO 70-200 f2.8. You'll get one brand new for around the same money as a used Canon F4 L |
| 11 June 2012 21:38 |
| extra_mayo Photographer  Location United Kingdom Kent Gillingham |
12 June 2012 15:45 |
||
| andybramahphotograph Photographer | dont be tempted by the sigma. its not as good as the 70-200mm f2.8 l is canon which outperforms it in every department. the canon is the best in the world. | |
| i love faces and images that make me want to see more. | ||
| 12 June 2012 19:53 |
| FocalCapture Photographer Location United Kingdom Wiltshire Swindon |  Quote from andybramahphotographdont be tempted by the sigma. its not as good as the 70-200mm f2.8 l is canon which outperforms it in every department. the canon is the best in the world. Which is like saying don't be tempted by a Ford, when a Bentley is a better car all round. The Canon will never beat the Sigma on price, since the Canon is substantially more expensive. The Sigma is also plenty good enough for 99% of photographers, many of us will never shoot at a level where the difference in IQ would be noticeable. |
|
