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!

2.8 vs 2.8 is ii

is like saying shit vs chocolate ^^
it's the holy grail in terms of zoom lenses.

This post was edited by Verdena on May 31 2011 08:18am

You mean the one at 2700 $ right?
But what about the other one.. it's also 2.8...

I would trade my first born for a 70-200 II any day.

The second is just a thousand times sharper.
Plus it has image stabilizer.

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...

Should be you if it only happened a few times.

Did you check your shutter speed was fast enough?

This post was edited by Verdena on May 31 2011 08:26am

LOL'd at remembering yesterday's skype

It was not movement blur... I was always shooting at faster than 1/500 sec, sometimes up to 1/2000 sec.... it's was really bad focus..

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:



This post was edited by MotherOfTwo on Jun 2 2011 03:38pm