Question about lens

[boog]

Will the image stabilization on 70-300 allow you to get stopped down to 2.8 on 70-200 2.8L. I know they say yu can get two or three stops with image stabilization. Just thought I'd ask guys who actually have used lens. I know trying to compare these two lens is apples and oranges I'm just looking for a good inside lens(as well as outside). I'm willing to buy the L lens for 2.8 but if I can get 70-300 with IS and save around $400. That would be great. I have recently purchased the 17-40L and love it. What you guys and gals say about lens true( about softness at 40mm). Thanks for your help.

[aparmley]

It gives you 2-3 stops of HAND-HOLDABILITY thats it. IT doesn't let more light in, it doesn't give you more shallow DOF - it just allows you to hand hold effectively the same as if you had 2-3 more stops of shutterspeed.

The people who buy the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f 2.8 buy them for different reasons and have different needs. . .

The 70-200 F2.8 will not be an indoor lens unless you are talking about indoor like gyms or what not and even then, its all based on lighting. . .

[cdifoto]

IS is liked a tripod. It'll steady the shot. It won't freeze action.

[boog]

I guess if I'd have thought about that, could've saved a post. If you don't mind me asking. What would be the different uses for thsse two lens? Thanks and sorry if stupid question.

[mhutchinson]

If you want fast IS, why not just push all the way to the 70-200mm f/2.8 L with IS..seems to be where many folks end up after having the 70-200mm f/2.8 L (only 1/3 pound heavier). I know it costs even more, but it is on my next zoom wish list (and I would keep my 70-200mm f/4 L just because it is lighter in weight). If you are really leaning to the 70-300mm IS non-L because of costs, then you might seriously want to just consider the 70-200 L f/4 non-IS as a starter. This lens is sharper, faster, and about the same price (sometimes less on eBay). Plus add a 1.4X converter and you will effectively have about 100-280mm with a constant f/5.6 (one stop cost for the 1.4X)...so better pictures, not any slower than the 70-300mm with IS, just doesn't have IS to aid with those times you don't want to use a monopod or tripod.

Another alternative is the 100-400mm L f/4.5-5.6 IS, the cost is somewhere in between the 70-200 f/2.8 L and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS...but then again add a converter to the f/2.8 L IS and this may still be better than the 100-400mm because it is a push/pull zoom plus the it will be at an f/4 constant for a similar range.

As for usage, it fits the portrait range, sports (f/4 is fast enough here outdoors, f/2.8 inside or overcast days just remember that the DOF is shallower here), family outings, and wildlife.....not to mention nice for the beach (just keep a filter on it if there is any breeze). As an after thought, I have heard that the 70-200 f/2.8 L non-IS is the sharpest of the three.....so one more choice to weigh in on your decission.

[ReF]

I guess if I'd have thought about that, could've saved a post. If you don't mind me asking. What would be the different uses for thsse two lens? Thanks and sorry if stupid question.

other than more control over DOF, the f2.8 will allow you to shoot with higher shutter speeds which is good for freezing action. no big deal in bright light but if for example its, near sundown and f5.6 gets you a shutter speed of 1/250 at ISO 800, f2.8 will give you the same exposure at 1/1000 sec. the f2.8 aperture also allows more light to pass through the lens and reach the AF sensors, which aids AF in poor lighting. oh yeah and it's brighter through the viewfinder if you're manually focusing.

an advantage of the 70-300 IS for example is shooting landscapes. let's say you need to stop down for proper DOF and it's getting dark or you want to use a polarizer AND you don't have a tripod, the IS will help you get sharp pictures at shutter speeds that are usually impossible to handhold.

[boog]

Thanks for responses. I believe the 70-200 is for me. Now just a question of getting the f2.8 or the f4. ANother question, is it more important to get the camera you want first or aquire the lens at get camera later? Or is it six one way and half a dozen the other. I have Canon 300D and am outgrowing it. Takes great pictures, I've just noticed that I'm the only one here that has it(believe thats right). Everyone else has at least stepped up to the XT model.

[boog]

never mind my question about glass vs. camera. I just read the torn between xt and 20d thread and answered question. The one thread I didn't read. Again, Thanks for help. I need to start posting some pics on here to get everyone's opinion.

[ReF]

if the pitiful start up time of the 300d or sadly shallow buffer when shooting bursts of RAW is a problem then seriously consider an upgrade. i lost a lot of shots because of those lame reasons. i found hacking that 300d was a nice improvment, and they didn't say anything when the camera went in for service (mechanical failure). other than the slowness, the camera will give the same great results as the d70s or d50. between the f2.8 and f4, seriously consider shelling out the $$$ for the f2.8 if you plan to use a 1.4x extender much of the time or shoot in the early and/or late hours of the day when it's dim. otherwise, the f4 is just as sharp, half the price and weight, and very capable.

[boog]

Thanks for your input ref (as well as everyone else). As for as the 2.8, I will be shooting at all times with kids and my numerous family get togethers. Alot indoors. Is the IS worth the extra money? Andy pointed out earlier that 70-200 would not be indoor lens unless in gyms and so forth. I have the 17-40L for inside but was curious if IS on the 2.8 would help. Biggest reason for this is I have been asked by brother-in-law to shoot wedding in Florida in June(for free I might add). I'm somewhat worried about my picture taking ability as I have just been doing this for a year. I never shoot in auto(stay in tv or av) and have played around with manual. I'm just wanting to purchase some good glass so if pictures are bad, I'll know it probably me and not epuipment. I also realize that 17-40 and 70-200 leaves a gap. From what I've read on this forum, probably the worst place for a gap as it falls in portrait range. Oh well, don't guess Rome was built in a day. Thanks for any advice.

[ReF]

Thanks for your input ref (as well as everyone else). As for as the 2.8, I will be shooting at all times with kids and my numerous family get togethers. Alot indoors. Is the IS worth the extra money? Andy pointed out earlier that 70-200 would not be indoor lens unless in gyms and so forth. I have the 17-40L for inside but was curious if IS on the 2.8 would help. Biggest reason for this is I have been asked by brother-in-law to shoot wedding in Florida in June(for free I might add). I'm somewhat worried about my picture taking ability as I have just been doing this for a year. I never shoot in auto(stay in tv or av) and have played around with manual. I'm just wanting to purchase some good glass so if pictures are bad, I'll know it probably me and not epuipment. I also realize that 17-40 and 70-200 leaves a gap. From what I've read on this forum, probably the worst place for a gap as it falls in portrait range. Oh well, don't guess Rome was built in a day. Thanks for any advice.

this is a repost from an ealier thread:
with most indoor artificial lighting, 70mm + f2.8 + ISO 800/1600 + 1.6x crop = barely hand holdable shutter speeds, making the rest of this lens' range pretty useless without IS. that's why 70-200 f2.8 IS lenses are so popular with wedding photogs.

it's not a problem IMO if you are able to use an external flash though (you have one, right?)

one of our wedding photogs here jamison55 used to work with a 80-200 f2.8 so he'll be able to tell you how useful (or useless) a non-IS f2.8 is for your purpose. though i should mention that he's now using a 70-200 IS, and our other wedding photog here, cwphoto, has posted some very impressive result also shot with that f2.8 IS.

40-70mm portrait gap - yeah, the 40 can include too much unwanted background (unless you wanna crop) and you'll need some backin' up room at 70mm. otherwise if you have room 70mm should work fine. if it's cramped, 50mm is a good focal length.

[boog]

I do have an external flash(Canon 550EX). I also have the Canon 50mm 1.8 MarkI(older one). I like the metal mount better. I believe mines pretty good(seems sharp). I read forum all the time and have seen Jamie's pictures. They are awsome. All of you guys and gals post good shots. The wedding was outside and I was pretty excited about that but decided to move inside and ballgame changes then. Seems as though the IS will be needed like you said with the high ISO's. Another question, what's a good lens to fill the gap between 40-70? Will 17-40L, 50mm 1.8 and 70-200 2.8(IS or not)be a good start? Not a big fan of filters but do have some UV filters to protect lenses. I have a Stofen omnibounce and the lightsphere. Thanks again for advice.

[ReF]

I do have an external flash(Canon 550EX). I also have the Canon 50mm 1.8 MarkI(older one). I like the metal mount better. I believe mines pretty good(seems sharp). I read forum all the time and have seen Jamie's pictures. They are awsome. All of you guys and gals post good shots. The wedding was outside and I was pretty excited about that but decided to move inside and ballgame changes then. Seems as though the IS will be needed like you said with the high ISO's. Another question, what's a good lens to fill the gap between 40-70? Will 17-40L, 50mm 1.8 and 70-200 2.8(IS or not)be a good start? Not a big fan of filters but do have some UV filters to protect lenses. I have a Stofen omnibounce and the lightsphere. Thanks again for advice.

i don't really notice a gap at all between 50-70mm. for portraits, usually in this range you're close enough to make big differences and make up the lack of focal length coverage by taking a step back or forward. i can't tell you if you'll miss shots while switching between lenses though

[boog]

Thanks ref(as well as everyone else). I'll post pictures after wedding and you all can give me some feedback. If anyone else has any suggestion or thoughts, please feel free to let me know. Thanks.

[cwphoto]

Thanks for your input ref (as well as everyone else). As for as the 2.8, I will be shooting at all times with kids and my numerous family get togethers. Alot indoors. Is the IS worth the extra money? Andy pointed out earlier that 70-200 would not be indoor lens unless in gyms and so forth. I have the 17-40L for inside but was curious if IS on the 2.8 would help. Biggest reason for this is I have been asked by brother-in-law to shoot wedding in Florida in June(for free I might add). I'm somewhat worried about my picture taking ability as I have just been doing this for a year. I never shoot in auto(stay in tv or av) and have played around with manual. I'm just wanting to purchase some good glass so if pictures are bad, I'll know it probably me and not epuipment. I also realize that 17-40 and 70-200 leaves a gap. From what I've read on this forum, probably the worst place for a gap as it falls in portrait range. Oh well, don't guess Rome was built in a day. Thanks for any advice.

IS has revolutionised wedding photography- it's that good. Don't worry about that gap too much - spend the money on IS instead.