|
Search this group's discussions
|
OT and probably a stupid question. IS vs fast glass??
|
As an old dog who was more familiar with lugging around a bunch of primes (back in my ever receding youthful days of film) I am sometimes at odds with the new digital era.
One area that has alwasy bugged me (and my wallet) is the "newgizmoitis" that seems so prevalent when technology is involved.
So in short, I am trying to decided on whether to invest in the the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM or it's cheaper brother without the IS.
This lens will start out on my crop body but will eventually be coupled up to a full frame body down the road.
I'm just wondering if there is any real benefit to the IS on such a fast piece of glass.
Opinions (No "swtich to Nikon" comments please...LOL)
Originally posted at 8:26AM, 5 April 2010 PDT
(permalink)
rwhitbread edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
In that specific case, the ƒ4 is better regarded for sharpness than the ƒ2.8 MkI is.
I've got the 2.8 with IS and I love it dearly, but I also got a smokin' deal on it (~$1640 new 2 years ago) but I'd recommend most people go for the ƒ4 with IS.
At those focal lengths (EFL 320 on 1.6X!!) the IS is very useful, and I really don't think you're gaining much with the extra stop of light.
Now, on the *non* L-Glass, I'd pretty much always say go for faster over IS because, as a general rule, faster glass is just better _quality_ glass, and IS is a nice sales gimmick to sell you a cruddy lens...
But then again, I'm super picky about my glass, I'll spend HOURS testing multiple copies in the store before I make my decision... and more than once I've walked away unsatisfied.
Drifting somewhat off-topic, but for the record, when people ask me, unqualified, what glass they should buy, my suggestions, (Canon biased, but not exclusively so), in purchase-order are:
For crop:
1. Sigma 17-70 ƒ2.8-4.5 DC (excellent walk-around & Macro, better than pretty much every kit zoom... if you get a good copy)
2. Canon 50 ƒ1.8 II (... $120. 'nuff said.)
3. Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22 (... they both kinda suck. UWA is hard to get right)
4. Canon 70-200 ƒ4 IS
For Full-Frame:
1. Canon 24-105 ƒ4 IS (5DMkII kit lens, very well regarded, the IS is nice, but not requisite for most of the range)
1. Canon or Nikon 24-70 ƒ2.8 (Sharpest lens I own. Period.)
2. Sigma 50 ƒ1.4 (... wow, just... wow.)
3. Canon 70-200 ƒ4 IS
(I always recommend against 'big-range' zooms, ie: 70-300, 18-200. I think of these as inducement, attachment or purchase-justification lenses, their performance is 'okay' at best.)
Going wider than 24mm on a full-frame is getting terribly expensive. I recently picked up the Canon 14 ƒ2.8 II because it was "on sale" ($800 off...) after wanting the 16-35 for a long time, but when I calculated the cost of putting filters on the 82mm thread, I realized it would cost MORE than the wider 14mm (which only takes drop-ins)... but I'm also assuming that if you're in this territory - you're doing your homework already and know this stuff.
-- EDIT:
1) I completely forgot about the 17-40 ƒ4L USM. This is a fantastic wide-angle lens and is "cheap" around $800CAD.
2) Updated gear-index link.
Originally posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
Mike.Geiger.ca (Myke) edited this topic 7 months ago.
|
|
|
(And I am available to go lens-shopping with people, but it will cost you ;)
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think you need to ask yourself the question on what are you using the lens for? If you are shooting low light situations then IS is helpful... But if you are shooting stobes, or during daylight I do not see the benifit.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have IS built in to my camera. I frequently shoot at 1/10th of a second with my 50mm, sometimes slower. With my 70-200G you can shoot at 200mm with a 1/60th shutter.
If you already have it, there is no question about it's benefits.
If you are choosing between a canon 70-200 f2.8, the IS version apparently sucks more than most Canon glass (I'm just playing). So if optics are your concern, apparently the regular one is better. But you have to make that choice.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It sounds more like IS vs non-IS to me (both lenses you are proposing are fast zooms). Agreed with Gord, depends on what you're using it for. If mostly available light, go with the IS. Remember though that IS won't freeze motion it will only help your shaky hands (something a shot of scotch may fix ;).
My personal opinion (I agree with Mike!) is get the 70-200 f4 IS (unless it's more expensive than the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. It'll be lighter, smaller, have IS and with most cameras doing very well above ISO1600 will be perfectly fine for available light photography.
Now onto the Nikon vs Canon bit: I really really really wish Nikon would come out with a series of f4 lenses. They're *severely* missing in this department. Stepping off soapbox now. Oh wait... did you say *DON'T* bring brand into the conversation? Sorry.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well the isuue with nailing down what I'll be using the lens for is a bit difficult as I sort of range all over the place...so to speak.
Lens speed IS a a factor as I tend to like to do a lot of outdoor stuff, and even though it's a bright and sunny day, once you get underneath the canopy, it darkens quite a bit.
Add to the fact that some of the best times to track game is in the low light hours of early AN and late PM, and you're looking at either tripod work from a blind, faster glass , or something decent with IS for hand held.
I got a litle frustrated last night. I took Judy out for a walk along teh Stoney swamp trail. It wasn;t really a "shoot walk" just a nice walk with my wife.(yes my mistress a.k.a my camera was along for the walk as well) and we happened upon a very bold, two or three year old doe. She posed nicely for me. While she wasn't shy, she surely wouldn't let me get any closer than I was (about 15 yards) so it was a long glass situation.
Unfortunately, the lighting sucked, and all I had was my el cheapo 75-300 racked out so it was f 5.6 (yuck). Well once I dialed up the ISO to 800 so I could get a decent handheld shutter speed.....well you can guess the results so I'll not embarrass myself by posting them
Soft would be one word used....if you are a generaous type..down right ugly would be what I would use.
Judy and I are planning a trip for next winter down to Belize which will see us doing some rainforest hiking, camping etc, so I'm starting to look at what I'll want for that kind of shooting (again underneath a canopy, dusk, and dawn, wild life, etc.
I've got daylight/strobe wide and close taken care of, and my 50mm F1.8 is fine for night portraits, but I need something that can take me a bit long, but fast or stable for hand held in lower lighting with out having to bump the ISO into next year..
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I loved the 70-200F4IS when I had it. For the extra stop to 2.8 outdoors, it was a rare occassion when I really wished I had that - and that was usually when I had the 1.4TC on pushing out to 280mm at F5.6 in poor light, Mostly, though, the F4IS just did the job beautifully.
For luggin around all day the weight savings on the F4 compared to the 2.8 was a really nice feature too!.
I found IS very helpfull on long glass - even in daylight. For wider glass, though - I agree with Gord.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Personally I went the fast-glass route because when I have to use a slower shutter, what is moving more? Me or the Subject?
If its Me, IS is what I should get.
If its the Subject, I need faster glass.
Its a ratio between the two you need to consider.
Originally posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
Tesseract (Graeme) edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
I opted for the 70-300 IS just after I bought my camera. I haven't regretted it but it's NOT an L lens and the 70-200 is now on my wish list.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Rick, sounds like you've just justified the 70-200 2.8 IS. Congratulations!
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yeah that's what I'm afraid of. So bassically let's see of I got it straight.
The 70-200 F4 IS ( Is it a constant F4?) is the best sharpness wise.
The 70-200 F2 is fast but not as sharp, as the 70-200 F4 IS
The 70-200 F2 IS is fast and stable but not as sharp as the 70-200 F4 IS
So in short the 70-200 IS should be the front runner?
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
swtich to Nikon!
Yes, it had to be said...only because you spelled Switch wrong, lol!
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Serves me right for adding the line AFTER doing my spell check.
I guess I 'could' look at going the Nikon route, it would make life easier. Afterall ts not like they actaully have really good glass to compare against their barely average glass, so the point would be a moot one..no???..
Wanna play some more? ;-)
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
... It's not like the 70-200 ƒ2.8 IS is really soft... it's just slightly softer than the ƒ4 version... It's still L-Glass and wears it's red stripe proudly.
But it's heavy.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Canon makes a 70-200 F/2? And a 70-200 F/2 IS?!?!?
Damn, that would be almost good enough to make me want to switch.
How much for those lenses? How many elements? Nano-coating on them?
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And, the 2.8 IS is also $800 more than the F4 IS. Even more so if you want the new Mark II version.
And yes, the F4IS is a constant F4.
For the price of the 2.8 IS you can get the F4 IS, the 1.4 TC to get you out to 280 at F5.6, and still have $400 in your pocket towards other things.
Then again, if you want to sacrifice IS for speed and don't mind carrying a bagfull, for about the same price of a 70-200 2.8IS Mark I you could pick up both the 135 F2.0 and 200 F2.8 and have the advantage of top prime goodness!
Or.... eventually you will think about too many options and your head will explode. ;)
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You're forgetting the 85 ƒ1.2L also... which is just... Wow.
www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndex...
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
- nah, I want to see that constant f/2 zoom - 70-200 at f/2 would be incredible - the Nikon 200 f/2 is an incredible piece of glass, and if Canon is making an IS and a non-IS version 70-200 zoom version of an F/2 then it would be very tempting to switch!
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Mike - I was TRYING to keep to a certain budget! lol.
But yeah, OK - what he REALLY should get to cover the range of his 75-300 is:
85F1.2
135 F2
200 F2
300 F2.8 IS
Or... a new car. His choice!
;)
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
arty_lee [deleted] says:
Just FYI, Olympus has f/2.0 tele zoom lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35-100mm F2.0
asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/35-100_20/
But I'm a Canon shooter.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If your not in a rush, Canon has announced they will be releasing a new version of the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens. Knowing Canon it should be within the next 4-6 months....
This may drive the price of the current version down in a month or so.
I know there is a big difference between Nikon's VR and the VRII, with the VRII being much sharper. I'm assuming Canon will be doing the same.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
eh? The Mark II is out... they're going to make a 3rd???
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If you don't want to wait, I have a used Canon 70-200 2.8 IS for sale
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Ottawa /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Ottawa discussion threads
