10-11-2010, 09:31 AM
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1286772775' post='3571']
There are very few reasons why anyone should choose the 70-200 f4 IS over the 70-200 2.8 IS II (only Mk II). For everything other than weight, the 2.8 IS II will be better hands down. f/4 is going to be barely enough for things like weddings where there's movement. When shooting people you'll have to think about having at least 1/80 (stabilisation aside) in the short-medium tele range or else you'll have subject blur. I don't think the f/4 can do it without pushing the ISO limits at ISO3200 if the lighting isn't ideal. If you're doing it for money then go for the 2.8 because you'll have much better shots.
Getting down to the plain optics, the 2.8 II is sharper at 2.8 than the f/4 IS is at f/4. That's a lot because the f4 IS was considered the best zoom until the 2.8 IS II came along. Also the newer lens has less CA than the f4 IS, although I doubt you'll have much trouble with it anyway. Like the other person said, the 2.8 lens will also have less AF trouble when the light is low.
Alternatively, get the 85 1.8 or the 135 f/2L instead along with a 24-70 2.8 on another body. I can guarantee that you'll get more interesting shots with the primes than you could with either the 2.8 IS or the f4 IS, especially with the 85 1.8.
GTW
PS: Yes, I have used these lenses. Here's [url="http://www.flickr.com/people/genotypewriter"]a list[/url] of them all.
[/quote]
Thanks, I will get the 70-200 2.8 II, that is quite a list you have there right now I also have the 5D II, 7D, 24-105 IS, 16-35 2.8 II, EF 100 2.8 L IS Macro, EF 50 1.4, and 70-300 IS DO lenses but I was also just thinking when the Pentax K-5 comes out (just a thought) maybe sell the 7D and get the K-5 but maybe that won't be a good idea.
There are very few reasons why anyone should choose the 70-200 f4 IS over the 70-200 2.8 IS II (only Mk II). For everything other than weight, the 2.8 IS II will be better hands down. f/4 is going to be barely enough for things like weddings where there's movement. When shooting people you'll have to think about having at least 1/80 (stabilisation aside) in the short-medium tele range or else you'll have subject blur. I don't think the f/4 can do it without pushing the ISO limits at ISO3200 if the lighting isn't ideal. If you're doing it for money then go for the 2.8 because you'll have much better shots.
Getting down to the plain optics, the 2.8 II is sharper at 2.8 than the f/4 IS is at f/4. That's a lot because the f4 IS was considered the best zoom until the 2.8 IS II came along. Also the newer lens has less CA than the f4 IS, although I doubt you'll have much trouble with it anyway. Like the other person said, the 2.8 lens will also have less AF trouble when the light is low.
Alternatively, get the 85 1.8 or the 135 f/2L instead along with a 24-70 2.8 on another body. I can guarantee that you'll get more interesting shots with the primes than you could with either the 2.8 IS or the f4 IS, especially with the 85 1.8.
GTW
PS: Yes, I have used these lenses. Here's [url="http://www.flickr.com/people/genotypewriter"]a list[/url] of them all.
[/quote]
Thanks, I will get the 70-200 2.8 II, that is quite a list you have there right now I also have the 5D II, 7D, 24-105 IS, 16-35 2.8 II, EF 100 2.8 L IS Macro, EF 50 1.4, and 70-300 IS DO lenses but I was also just thinking when the Pentax K-5 comes out (just a thought) maybe sell the 7D and get the K-5 but maybe that won't be a good idea.