Yep, all the Canon 70-200s are white lenses.

Telephoto compression makes the background appear closer to your subject then it really is.
Check the pics in this wiki for an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29#Influencing_factors

Also, a telephoto lens is usually better for portraits, check this link.
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/Tutorials_Lens_Perspective.htm

You currently have a 18-55IS right? The 24-70 is a "L" grade lens which stands for "luxury". It's built alot better, AF speed is alot quicker, weather resistant, alot sharper, better color rendition, better distortion control, also better at controlling CA, PF, Flare etc.

I said non-IS because there are 5 different 70-200 in Canon's lineup.

Canon 70-200 f/4L USM (Non-IS)- $650 USD
Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM - $1200 USD
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L USM (Non-IS)- $1300 USD
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM- $1850 USD
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM Mark II- $2270 USD

The link that you gave doesn't work but i can tell that's the one from the link description.



zzz. I don't remember

Is it worth getting non-is? And 4.0 F? Will I want to upgrade to a better in the near future?

I've never had an IS lens before, so I don't know what I'm missing there.

I also notice, of course, the prices sky rocket when you add IS and lower aperture

This post was edited by Chantal7 on Oct 21 2010 11:41pm

yes. If you won't be shooting insanely indoors, then you'll be fine with the 4.0. Remember that IS is for subjects that are not in motion. Your only limit, therefore, will be against dark places. You have ur 1.8 prime for that tho.

The Non-IS is a great lens, it's not as sharp as the 70-200 f/4L IS variant but it's still very very respectable.

The Non-Is might be a little slow indoors or during cloudy days but shouldn't be a problem majority of the time. During the time when i had a 70-200 f/4L non-is, it taught me alot about handholding techniques. I can now handhold 400mm (640mm on full frame) focus on something 10 feet away and shoot as low as 1/2 sec while being respectably sharp. But with aid of a 2 stop IS system. Still pretty good imo.

Oh okay. Hmmm! Decisions decisions.....

True, I do have my 1.8 for the dark places....

I honestly don't know if I'll be shooting indoors with this lens... I love the fact you can zoom in so far. Could lead to some fun in the indoor parts. Maybe I could consider getting the 1200 dollar one.... argh!




What do you mean by slow?

This post was edited by Chantal7 on Oct 21 2010 11:49pm

Meaning it's hard to get a high enough shutter speed without racking up ISO.

Remember the 1/focal length rule.

Edit: Chantal, your status is set as Anon

This post was edited by Eek on Oct 21 2010 11:50pm

I'll sell u the one i bought :D. Has factory guarantee until March, doesn't have a single scratch (got it practically new and haven't used it except twice), there is hardly any wear on the attachment to cam, comes with manual, original foam holder etc. 70-200 L IS F4. I don't use it because I use the 70-200L IS F2.8 II.

Ah..

So this makes me think it's safer to get the 2.8... Shit, it's so much more money. Lol!




How much would you sell it for ? This I might consider.




My status??? Huh?

This post was edited by Chantal7 on Oct 21 2010 11:52pm

I'm not sure. I'm willing to let it go for 950, and this includes shipping. I've had offers on FM but I find it hard to trust

Well, that's only a problem indoors or during bad weather.. ask yourself how often you're going to shoot with that long of a focal length in those environments? If you have a better body, jacking up the ISO wouldn't be an issue. Time to upgrade bodies too

edit:

Go Back To Photography Topic List
4 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 1 Anonymous): jayandnix, Eek, onepagememory


This post was edited by Eek on Oct 21 2010 11:53pm