Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Photography Forum' started by DropEmInDE, Aug 2, 2009.
I pulled the trigger on a 70-200f4L IS last night....just waiting for it to arrive.
Congrats on the new lens. You'll be happy you got the IS. The sharpness of this lens is awesome, I think you'll find it to be just as sharp as you're 300.
Justin Messick - Photography Junkie - The f4 Dude
You'll love your new toy!
I sure hope so, im having to sell my sole to afford the darn thing...lol...
HA HA! Dang, I havnt seen my soul for.....oh..... four years
Heres one of the reviews i read on Fred Miranda that got me sold on that lens..
Best review of a product i have ever read. Guys, if you are thinking about a medium range zoom. And you think spending the money on a f2.8 is you only move. I highly suggest you real through the almost 17 pages of reviews on this lens over on fred miranda...And look at all the people that got rid of their 70-200f2.8s because of size and weight. Only to pick up the 70-200f4 IS and find that it is lighter, AF is faster, and Sharper at all Fstops..
That's pretty much why I went with the f4 too. It's not a length that I use all the time and I figured that if it was lightweight and small enough I would get more use out of it since it would still fit in my bags/cases along with a long lens. It's also allot more practical for a general walk around lens. Now if you're gonna shoot weddings and low light sports I could see going for the 2.8
I highly doubt i will shoot either of those.. But i have scheduled quite a few model shoots in the next few weeks. That's kinda the reason i am upgrading my gear..
After reading the "so called reviews" on Miranda I'm going to speak as a pro and say that's the biggest bunch of "Hur-RAH" that I have ever read with the exception of some accounts! If this were all true than Canon would not even make the 2.8 more less sell it to anyone!
True! @ 2.8 the lens is not as sharp at f4 but is equally sharp at 5.6 as the f4 model! Duh, I wonder why? This also applies to the 50 f1.2 and the 85 f1.2 versus f3.5 on both of those lenses!!!!
Do any of you Fred Miranda readers on here know why?
This is typical of these fast lenses...Do you know why!
These fast lenses are made for what format.....Do you know what and why?
I'm not knocking your purchase Justin by no means but there are specific reasons that we buy that type of lens with that type of speed!
Fred Miranda's wannabes don't tell you that 99.9% of Photo journalist for the media use the 70-200 2.8 or that 99.9% of professional photographers that shoot the 35mm format DSLR and the 70-200 use the f2.8.
Geesh I wonder why?
Do you know why it's heavier and the reason for it? (even the non IS version)
The f4 version is cheaper, lighter and some what sharper at wide open than the 2.8 but both at f4 are very close in sharpness! That's a fact! But then there is a reason for that little lack of sharpness due to a type of element in that lens. There's a whole lot more important things in low light that you need to have going for you than that little difference in sharpness......
You guys do a little research and then tell me what I'm talking about!
I'm not going to do it for you just yet! I'll let you see the reasons for your selves so there is no bias here!
Oh and Justin, Models!!!!! Well the "reason" really applies to that type of work! But, you can take care of it in PS in most cases!
The f/4 models are so inferior to the f/2.8, that Nikon doesn't even bother making one!!