Quote (MotherOfTwo @ May 31 2011 10:13am)
Ok I completely fell in love this week-end....
Name: Canon
Now I had to bring back the lens I had rented, yesterday before work.
At work I checked again the price of the 70-200 2.8 again at the big camera store in Montreal L. L. Lozeau and wtf... I find that there are 2 of those lenses..
One is 2700 $ and the other one is 1700$ (approximations)..
I tried to see the difference but could only find something intern with the glasses, 5 instead of 4 (I'm typing this from home, and no way I'll go check now on dial-up).
Anyone knows what the real difference is between those 2 lenses that can justify the 1k $ difference?
Would I notice a difference while using one or the other for action horse photos?
Input would be appreciated!
I am seriously considering putting myself more in debt and getting a pro lens.....
No way I'll get the 4.0-5.6 or whatever, I had a hard time with the 2.8 under cloudy conditions already....
But... 1,7k or 2,7k... must think about it..
Also was considering maybe renting the 100 mm 2.8 macro to see if it could be a more useful all around lens that I could also use for action horse photography..
I didn't always have to be at 200 mm, sometimes the horses were closer and I had to adjust... it's a pro lens and I can just crop a little more if I have to...
Any idea?
For me to spend this amount of money (even with a loan) is a big deal... so I must be really sure before I make such a move...
Thanks in advance!
Marie, get ready for a very very very long post.
Resident Nerd here.
There is actually 5 different 70-200mm lens that Canon Markets.
List from cheapest to most expensive. (ballpark price included)
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS (4 stop Image stablization)
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (2 stop image stablization)
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mark II (4 stop image stablization)
Those are the different types of 70-200 Canon markets. For what you're using it for, i'm sure you can use the extra stop of light the f/2.8 lenses allow, so you are basically choosing from 3 lenses.
In terms of Image quality. This is how they perform from worst to best.
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Mark II
While most people say that IS is useless unless you're shooting stationary objects, I respectfully disagree. I'm sure you'll be panning with the horses at the horse show eventually if you haven't already and Canon's Mode 2 Image stabilization on the IS lenses make it easier to pan since it neutralizes vertical movement.
Therefore I kind of narrowed it down to the two f/2.8L IS lenses.
The first gen Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS has 2 stops of IS and the newest version (Mark II) has 4 stops of IS, that being one of the difference and also the Mark II's optics have been upgraded to prime like sharpness.
That's up to you to decide rather the extra 2 stops of IS and increased image quality is worth the money. While the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (1st gen) has the worst optics of the three, it is no slouch. It has served professional photog's as their workhorse lens for many many years. Just because the newer Mark II came out doesn't make the version 1 suck.
Quote (MotherOfTwo @ May 31 2011 10:23am)
haha I know the feeling!!
Is it the lens, the camera or the photographer (me) when I take pictures of a horse in action, knowing the focus point is where I want it, and I get a blurred photo... ?
Cause it did happen a few times with the lens I rented...
I think that's not the lens. I have the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mark II also and the lens is remarkably fast in AF performance. I think what's holding you back is your current body. If i remember correctly, you're using the XSi?
The Xsi only has center cross-type AF while all the other surrounding points are linear AF points. Linear AF points focus accuracy and speed lacks significantly compared to cross-type AF points. If you're using it for action shots, center point is all you can use pretty much on the Xsi.
I would recommend upgrading your body to at least a 40D or a 50D which can be had in the used market for roughly $400. You can sell the Xsi to recoupe most of that investment. Kijiji is very easy to sell on in Canada. With the 40D, you'll have a more capable camera in terms of catching action shots due to better AF (All 9 AF points are cross-type). Also, you'll have a somewhat more robust body that can withstand a little weather and better ergonomics for controls.
Quote (MotherOfTwo @ Jun 2 2011 05:30pm)
Ok... since no one has really answered the question the way I want it...
Let's rephrase it...
There are 3 70-200 on the Canon market...
one is 4.0-5.6 (I may have the numbers wrong, but it's in that range), and 2 are 2.8.
The 4.0 is very affordable, but not suitable for my needs (need fast speed).
One of the 2.8 can be affordable with a loan, the other one, not so much....
So basicly, the 2700 $ lens is not so much an option, and the 4.0 either cause too slow.
That leaves me with the 2,8 at 1300 $..
Or..... within the same price range..
The 100 macro 2.8
I know I was not always shooting at 200 mm on the show ring (horses I mean), and sometimes I was just shooting wide and cropping the image on PS afterwards, cause it was more convenient.
It is hard to have the focus point exactly where I want it, when the horse is galloping and all..
I may rent the 100 2,8 macro and try it out at a horse show and compare...
What do the pros here think about that?
This is an example of photo taken with the 2700$ lens:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5066/5774444958_7f58bc2fdf_z_d.jpg
To be honest, i would totally skip the 100L Macro IS lens. For what you're doing, the Macro just can't do it. While it is remarkably sharp, AF on that lens is very very slow compared to the 70-200 or even the 135L like others mentioned. The lens just couldn't keep up. I would in fact recommend the 135L if you can afford it or get the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8. I know it is not a L lens but that lens has stupid fast AF and excellent image quality. The only downside is that it does have significant amount of AF when shooting wide open. If you can correct that in post, that lens is gold.
85mm on your 1.6x Crop factor body will be close to 135mm which i think is a very sweet focal length for alot of things.
Quote (onepagememory @ Jun 2 2011 07:58pm)
Subtract the 100mm 2.8. Subtract the 70-200 II. Unless you're making some heavy dough, you'd best spend 2k+ on a new body instead of that lens.
This, i seriously recommend a newer body.
Quote (MotherOfTwo @ Jun 2 2011 08:02pm)
If that means money, then it't not happening
I checked in our main Montreal photo store and didn't see the 100 2.0 ....
For similar price there is the 100 2.8 and the 135 2,0
http://www.lozeau.com/catalogue/objectifs/canon/p/param/1478,truePrices are 200-300 more here than in the US, so could be worth doing some driving.....
Also how important is the IS.... is it also for image quality?
I've already answer this above, but just consider the panning performance.
Just my 2 cents. Hope this post can help you in making the final decision.