70-200mm lenses

[woody64]

Thanks to everyone for their help in choosing my "present". I went with the Canon 70-200/f2.8. :banana: I have only played with it a little and will use it more this weekend at the first swim meet as I was allowed to open before Christmas.

Here are some of my first shots, let me know what you think:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b267/bgidlow/IMG_5116sq.jpg
This crazy squirrel was in our Bradford Pear during last Fridays snow/ice storm

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b267/bgidlow/IMG_5188catch.jpg
DS(11) showing how easy it is to dive in the snow for the pass

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b267/bgidlow/IMG_5181Belle2.jpg
Our beagle Belle (note:I did lighten this one a wee bit in PSE)

Have a great holiday season and thanks for the help and advice.

[kmadams]

Enjoy your Christmas present! 2 years ago I got my Nikon D70 as an early Christmas gift from my husband and I was so glad to have it, got some once in a lifetime shots of my daughter in the Nutcracker that year.

Of your 3 pictures I like your squirrel picture the best. It looks like he is playing peek-a-boo with you! The colors are also very nice, great capture. Have a great time taking pictures at the swim meet, looks like a nice lens.

[Master Mason]

you will enjoy it. That's the same chirstmas present I got. And I also was awarded it early so I could get some good shots of the kids playing football. While a heavy sucker, it is my favorite lens.

[mabas9395]

This is at the top of my christmas list too. Allthough it occasionally trades places with the 10-22 (depending on my mood).

But I really need to get my wife into a bigger house before I get any more toys.

[jann1033]

would you buy the sigma 70-200 f2.8 over the canon 70-200 f4 for $200 more? the photos look good for the sigma, great for the canon but i haven't compared them side by side. the canon f2.8 is way over my budget the sigma is maxing it out as it is( ie no external flash if i buy that one till i get some more $$)

just wondering if the extra speed would help make up for my shaky hands or if the sigma is much less sharp than the canon f4. i think where i am getting annoyingly hung up on these and the 70-300IS is i think i want the larger aperture to be able to play around with and not sure where the cut off ought to be...ie will i regret only having 5.6 on the 300 end cause the is won't make up for dof....or will the dof be enough different between 4 and 5.6 to matter? or would i rather have the 2.8 but is it not sharp enough...i'm driving myself nuts here.

[boBQuincy]

Hmm, a difficult call.
As most people on this board know, I usually prefer OEM lenses and accessories. The Sigma has received very good reviews but since I don't have one I will only guess:

The Sigma is probably as sharp as the Canon by the time it is stopped down to f/4. And you still have f/2.8 for low light.

The Canon is built *so*well I can't imagine the Sigma can be as good, but maybe.

The Sigma is probably a better deal now but the Canon probably has better resale value.

C'mon, you know you really want that off-white lens to tell everyone "I have arrived". ;) Sorry, I just couldn't help it!

[Lachesis00]

*hehehehe* I too am looking for a new zoom lens. My 70-300 tameron took a dive. It works *sometimes*. It doesn't always auto focus. My eyesite can not be depended on for manual focus, especially for concerts.

I want a f/2.8 or lower zoom... for concert shots. I am wondering what chunk of change I will be shelling out though!

[MarkBarbieri]

would you buy the sigma 70-200 f2.8 over the canon 70-200 f4 for $200 more?
Ahh, the insanity inducing "just a little more" game. If you are going to spend that much for the Sigma, you can get the Canon f/2.8 for just a couple hundred more. And if you are going to spend that much, the IS version isn't that much more.

Good luck with your decision.

[gruZ]

I'll admit to being biased because I own the Sigma - and am very happy with it. Here is some more information:

Click (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=260322&highlight=Sigma+70-200+f%2F2.8)- Some general thoughts

Click (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=232172&highlight=Sigma+70-200+f%2F2.8)- More general thoughts and some posted images from this lens.

Good Luck!

[jann1033]

funny how that works...only last july i was thinking the sigma 18-125 was pricey:lmao:
thanks for the links gruz...i think i grilled you about this on rachel's lens thread too :)

[jann1033]

anyone familiar with the lowepro cases for lens? it looks like the case 2 would fit that and the kenko teleconverter( lens =6.8", converter.78" , case 8.25" but it would be close so wondering if the cases are on the money dimensions or larger or smaller? i'd like to keep the converter with the lens in case i have it attached
the 4 is 10" and might be to big.

i think someone said about another brand as well if they can tell me again, sorry should have written it down..i want to be able to attach it to the outside of my case so it would have to be padded( i might get one of those holster type camera cases sooner or later but right now i have out grown my bag once again:eek: )

[Groucho]

I have a Zing lens pouch, which is less "shaped" than the Tamrac ones. I'm not sure how it compares with the Lowepro one. I'd probably get another Zing; actually, probably will, one of these days, the lens pouch was a really handy accessory at WDW. I would guess that they're all pretty effective.

The Zing one just had a sewn-on belt strap on the back, no Velcro or anything like that.

[handicap18]

I have the Tamrac Large lens case that attaches to my camera bag and also to my belt (came in very handy the other day when carrying around 2 lenses). It fits my 70-300mm VR lens though it might be to small for your 70-200. They also have an X-Large case that is 8 1/2 inches deep and 4 1/2 inches wide. There is a review on the xl case on amazon from someone that says its fits their 70-200. But doesn't say if its an f/4 or f/2.8, though I would think if it fits an f/2.8 then it would fit an f/4.

On a side note regarding the review, I reviewed the xl case when I actually should have reviewed the L case. I'll have to try and fix that on amazon.

[boBQuincy]

My Canon 70-200 f/4 lives in a LowePro #2 case. I put the lens in face down and the hood fits (snugly) on top. The lens and Canon 1.4x converter will both fit, barely.

The LowePro cases are $$$ but are well made and attach easily to belts and such.

[jann1033]

thanks..i'll check out the other brands as well..right now my backpack is going to have to be my carrying bag since the camera and 70-200 hog all the space of the smaller bag. i took a bunch of stuff out so i'll see how it works tomorrow

[jann1033]

1) exactly what does the little switch that changes from 1.2 meters- infinity and 3 meters to infinity do. when would it matter in the real world? does it just focus closer or something or what?

2) what does the "1:4" mean on the lens end by where you attach a filter? someone said it was a macro but i only saw that one place and don't think it says so on canon but don't know what else the 1:4 could mean

Thanks

[Master Mason]

Well I will answer the first one. It limits the range for focusing, so if you know your shooting a football game, and nothing is closer to you than 3 meters where you want to focus, then you can throw the switch and eliminate that range, It is supposed to make focusing faster, as the camera doesn't have to go into that range to check.

[Groucho]

I believe the 1:4 is indeed the amount of macro focusing... which isn't too much. I think 1:2 is amount the minimum that counts as a "true" macro...

I don't remember exactly, but I think it's 1:1 means that what you're photographing is exactly the same size on the sensor/film as it is in real life... 2x is twice as big... something like that?

[jann1033]

I believe the 1:4 is indeed the amount of macro focusing... which isn't too much. I think 1:2 is amount the minimum that counts as a "true" macro...
I don't remember exactly, but I think it's 1:1 means that what you're photographing is exactly the same size on the sensor/film as it is in real life... 2x is twice as big... something like that?

thanks master mason


macro was the only thing i had seen listed like that as well and that is the same range as my "pseudo macro" other lenses but since i don't think it focuses closer than whatever 1.2 m would be ( 4 ft ish?) i wasn't sure if it means something else.

[MarkBarbieri]

1:4 means that the largest "in focus" image you can create on your sensor with that lens is 1/4 the size of the object in real life. If you move closer, you'll either have to zoom out, you won't be able to focus, or both. As Groucho already said, 1:1 would mean that the image on the sensor can be as large as the object you are photographing. Of course, you can print the image at whatever size you want.

There is nothing magical about any particular magnification ratio, but it is a nice way to compare lenses. If you find yourself out in the field wanting to take a picture of a small flower, you can check the magnification ratio of your lenses and quickly see which one will give you the most magnification.

You can increase the magnification ratio of any lens by adding extension tubes or a closeup filter. Extension tubes work by moving the lens further from the camera. That helps because the closer you get to an object, the further back the lens focuses the image. By moving the lens further from the camera, you can get closer to the object and still stay in focus. A closeup lens works pretty much like putting a magnifying glass on your lens.

As for the switch, Master Mason's explanation is correct. Under normal circumstances, it doesn't matter. At times when your lens loses focus and has to start hunting, it reduces the range over which it needs to hunt. There are times when this is really handy, like shooting flying birds or planes. With either of those, when you lose track, your camera tries to focus on the sky, which has insufficient constrast for the auto-focus. In that case, it just starts roaming the entire focus range. When you catch up to your bird or plane again, the focus could be way off. The switch just limits how far off it can get.

[jann1033]

1:4 means that the largest "in focus" image you can create on your sensor with that lens is 1/4 the size of the object in real life. If you move closer, you'll either have to zoom out, you won't be able to focus, or both. As Groucho already said, 1:1 would mean that the image on the sensor can be as large as the object you are photographing. Of course, you can print the image at whatever size you want.

There is nothing magical about any particular magnification ratio, but it is a nice way to compare lenses. If you find yourself out in the field wanting to take a picture of a small flower, you can check the magnification ratio of your lenses and quickly see which one will give you the most magnification.

You can increase the magnification ratio of any lens by adding extension tubes or a closeup filter. Extension tubes work by moving the lens further from the camera. That helps because the closer you get to an object, the further back the lens focuses the image. By moving the lens further from the camera, you can get closer to the object and still stay in focus. A closeup lens works pretty much like putting a magnifying glass on your lens.

As for the switch, Master Mason's explanation is correct. Under normal circumstances, it doesn't matter. At times when your lens loses focus and has to start hunting, it reduces the range over which it needs to hunt. There are times when this is really handy, like shooting flying birds or planes. With either of those, when you lose track, your camera tries to focus on the sky, which has insufficient constrast for the auto-focus. In that case, it just starts roaming the entire focus range. When you catch up to your bird or plane again, the focus could be way off. The switch just limits how far off it can get.
Thanks
so it would be better to use the 3m in those cases?..i did notice that yesterday when i was taking some birds at the beach but forget which it was on now

[MarkBarbieri]

so it would be better to use the 3m in those cases?

Yes. If it lost focus, it would hunt between 3m and infinity rather than 1.2m and infinity. That means that it can't get as far out of focus. Of course, this assumes that what you want to shoot is 3m or more away.

[boBQuincy]

Afaik the 1:4 just means f/4. My 50 f/1.8 says 1:1.8, my 55-200 says 1:4.5-5.6.

As noted, the focus range switch can give quicker focusing if you don't need the close focus. The amount of rotation from 3m to 1.2m is a lot.

Let me know when you get caught trying to focus close with the focus switch in the 3m position and can't figure what is wrong for a few seconds, then use the special Canon words (@#$%^&*). It still happens to me now and then. ;)

[jann1033]

to late, i already did that...not sure if they were official canon words though since mine were more related to the abject fear i felt when i thought i had another lens with :scared1: :scared1: :scared1: a "lens problem" (think sound of psycho shower scene sound track) that needed repair.. i could have used up a bunch of canon words if i did

[Miss Kelly]

I'm renting the Canon 70-200 IS L for 3 weeks and Holy Cow! I love this L Glass. I think I'm addicted. lol

I didn't have many willing subjects today unfortunately, so here are a just a few photos to share.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q200/Kelly_Hamm/IMG_8331.jpg

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q200/Kelly_Hamm/IMG_8532.jpg

I can't decide if I like this last one or not. This is SOOC. It needs straightening obviously.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q200/Kelly_Hamm/IMG_8525.jpg

[DVC Jen]

oh I am so envious. I'm not sure where to rent around here. Maybe I should check into it. BUT I am also concerned that if I do try it - I won't be happy until it is mine.

have fun and keep posting your pics.

[Miss Kelly]

oh I am so envious. I'm not sure where to rent around here. Maybe I should check into it. BUT I am also concerned that if I do try it - I won't be happy until it is mine.

have fun and keep posting your pics.

Oh, I didn't rent local. I rented from http://www.lensrentals.com I have a few other places on my list too (if your interested). ;)

[tinksdad]

Nice shots!! I think that is a great way to make sure that you want to sink the bucks into pro grade glass before you actually buy!! Now you need a "I gotta have this lens" fund!!:woohoo:

[mabas9395]

Looks like you have the f/2.8 version. Very Nice!!!

[handicap18]

Oh, I didn't rent local. I rented from http://www.lensrentals.com I have a few other places on my list too (if your interested). ;)

Oh coooool. Looks like it is more of a Canon place, but does have Nikon stuff too. I like that you can reserve a lens. Their stock seems better than rentglass.com. Prices are still good too. I might have to rent something just to try out something new.

I'll definately keep them in mind for my next Disney trip in Nov.

Thanks for the link.

Enjoy that lens while you have it.

[AndrewWG]

Does anyone know why it matters that there are two settings for IS on this lens? I was doing alot of panning shots today and I just urned the IS off but now I realixe that I could have switched it to mode 2 on the lens. Is this helpful? I think my shots came out alright without the IS, but that was mostly due to the 1/4000 shutter speed, not my steady hand, however the ones shot at like 1/250 still came out good. I had the lens at 200mm with the 1.4X teleconverter. My shots that were taken at 1/30 had some problems, but I was looking for the blurred movement of panning a fast subject anyways. Any suggestions on whether or not I should use this "mode 2" IS in these situations?

Thanks in advance.

[Steve's Girl]

I recently saw that this lens was available for pre-order at B&H and Adorama. It is priced at $699. I have tried to find reviews on this lens and have not been able to find much. Has anyone else seen any reviews? I would like to purchase a 2.8 zoom at some point and at this price, the Tamron looks pretty interesting. Wonder how it compares to the $900 Nikon 80-200?

[Anewman]

The lens has not been released, hence it will be a while til reviews hit the net.

My guess based on other Tamron lenses is that the biggest issue will be build quality, while optical quality should be above expectations given the price.

[Groucho]

It was supposed to be out last month, I think. The latest I've heard is that it's been delayed until the summer.

I am very interested in this lens, so I'm anxiously awaiting release and some feedback from early buyers and reviews. The hope is that, quality-wise, it'll be comparable to their 28-75mm F2.8. The stats on paper certainly look good.

Sigma is also released an updated version of their 70-200mm F2.8 in the next couple months, but I'm not sure what their price will be.

[Anewman]

Sigma is also released an updated version of their 70-200mm F2.8 in the next couple months, but I'm not sure what their price will be.
Sigma pretty much updates that lens on an annual basis, street prices have been in the low $800 range even after each update.

[Gdad]

Since getting my Sigma 30/1.4 and being extremely happy with it I am now considering my second non-Nikkor lens- a Sigma 24-70/2.8. I can't swing the Nikon version at the moment- $1699 *cough* so for around $400 the Sigma seems like a pretty good value to cover the range at f2.8.

Thoughts? Anyone have this or an alternate they like?

[Master Mason]

Since getting my Sigma 30/1.4 and being extremely happy with it I am now considering my second non-Nikkor lens- a Sigma 24-70/2.8. I can't swing the Nikon version at the moment- $1699 *cough* so for around $400 the Sigma seems like a pretty good value to cover the range at f2.8.

Thoughts? Anyone have this or an alternate they like?

I looked at it for a while before going with the canon, It has a good rep. Deleted Penguin uses it to great effect.

[fitzperry]

I considered it before going with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Both get quite favorable reviews. My research suggested that the Tamron gets the edge, although not by much. In fact, IIRC it was a couple of regulars here (Groucho and I can't remember who else) who tipped the balance for me. I also decided that I would want something wider than either of them, so the extra range on that end wasn't a deciding factor.

[Boss Hogg]

Not got the 24-70mm, but I recently got the 70mm f2.8 Sigma and I am very happy with it. I should imagine that it would be similar in quality to the 24-70, so would highly recommend it.

[deletedpenguin]

Ya, I use it, though the Canon equivilent. Sigma makes great lenses, and it's sharp. Granted, it's not AS fast as some of the Canon L lenses I have, but it's got pretty good IQ and great, vibrant colours. It's a great lens, especially for 1/4 of the price.

I've got heaps of photos that I've taken with this lens (it was my walkaround lense at Disneyland the last few times), but this one probably shows some of its best qualities. Especially since it was taken at ISO 1600.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2019/2009649992_882faebaf4.jpg

Camera: Canon EOS 30D
Exposure: 0.05 sec (1/20)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 34 mm
ISO Speed: 1600
Exposure Bias: 0/3 EV

[Gdad]

Well after spending some time on the Sigma website sorting thru the offerings in the range I want it concerns me the 24-70 I was looking at is not an EX or HSM Lens- especially since focus speed is my main beef with the 80-200 which I am planning to sell. So now I am looking at these two pieces:

18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3328&navigator=6)

APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3340&navigator=3)

I did a quick price check on Amazon- those two lenses- plus a Sigma APO 2X Teleconverter which will give me 400mm at f5.6 with fast HSM auto focusing- will run me under $1400 for the lot shipped. I do wish the 70-200 had O.S. but I guess Sigma is kind of new to the whove vibration reduction thing as not too many of their lenses seem to have it (and part of me thinks it is overly hyped anyway.) If the Sigmas match the 30/1.4 (also EX/HSM) in quality and speed I will be a happy camper.

[Steve's Girl]

especially since focus speed is my main beef with the 80-200 which I am planning to sell.


Thanks for the comments on the 80-200. I have been considering this lens and will now cross it off my list. Why don't you go buy the Sigma and let me know how you like it! That's the next one down on my list.

[Master Mason]

Well after spending some time on the Sigma website sorting thru the offerings in the range I want it concerns me the 24-70 I was looking at is not an EX or HSM Lens- especially since focus speed is my main beef with the 80-200 which I am planning to sell. So now I am looking at these two pieces:

18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3328&navigator=6)

APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3340&navigator=3)

I did a quick price check on Amazon- those two lenses- plus a Sigma APO 2X Teleconverter which will give me 400mm at f5.6 with fast HSM auto focusing- will run me under $1400 for the lot shipped. I do wish the 70-200 had O.S. but I guess Sigma is kind of new to the whove vibration reduction thing as not too many of their lenses seem to have it (and part of me thinks it is overly hyped anyway.) If the Sigmas match the 30/1.4 (also EX/HSM) in quality and speed I will be a happy camper.

I would ask Mark about the 2x converter, I have a 1.4 that works great, and I use frequently, but Mark was saying the 2x doesn't work as well as the 1.4x.

[Gdad]

Thanks for the comments on the 80-200. I have been considering this lens and will now cross it off my list. Why don't you go buy the Sigma and let me know how you like it! That's the next one down on my list.

I had the 70-200/2.8 vr for a while- which was lightning fast so maybe I got spoiled. The 80-200/2.8 is definately a lot slower- it works fine for many things- but I really enjoy bird photography and I just can't get it to lock on to birds in flight- especially with a teleconverter- extra slow and hunting all over the place then.

[Gdad]

I would ask Mark about the 2x converter, I have a 1.4 that works great, and I use frequently, but Mark was saying the 2x doesn't work as well as the 1.4x.

I had a 1.7X I used on my 70-200vr that worked great- as said I use a 2X now and it is less effective but I blame the lens more than the TC. I dont think Sigma has an APO 1.7TC- just a 1.4X and a 2X. If I get the lens I will probably pick them both up since they are priced fairly reasonably.

[NostalgicDad]

Well after spending some time on the Sigma website sorting thru the offerings in the range I want it concerns me the 24-70 I was looking at is not an EX or HSM Lens- especially since focus speed is my main beef with the 80-200 which I am planning to sell. So now I am looking at these two pieces:

18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3328&navigator=6)

APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3340&navigator=3)

I did a quick price check on Amazon- those two lenses- plus a Sigma APO 2X Teleconverter which will give me 400mm at f5.6 with fast HSM auto focusing- will run me under $1400 for the lot shipped. I do wish the 70-200 had O.S. but I guess Sigma is kind of new to the whove vibration reduction thing as not too many of their lenses seem to have it (and part of me thinks it is overly hyped anyway.) If the Sigmas match the 30/1.4 (also EX/HSM) in quality and speed I will be a happy camper.


I have the 18-50mm f/2.8 non-HSM version and have to say it's my "funnest" lens. I've had it for about a year now and not a single problem. Lots of versatility for the type of shooting I do and having f/2.8 all the way through is nice. I have no problem with the speed or sound of the focusing and can only imagine how much nicer the HSM version must be.

The sharpness and clarity of this lens rivals pro glass in my opinion. I can't imagine you would be disappointed with this choice.

[Groucho]

Most reviews I've seen which compare the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 and the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 indicate that the Tamron bests the Sigma in sharpness and is lighter to boot.

Not to say that the Sigma is bad - but I'd lean towards the Tamron. (And did, obviously. :) ) Though I wouldn't mind something wider, but I think if I were after that, I'd go with a proper ~16-50mm F2.8 lens. (And may, one of these days.)

Welcome to the world of third party lenses! I think it's a real shame when people never try moving outside the OEM lenses. There's too many interesting third-party lenses out there, especially if you look at older primes, macros, etc. IMHO, that's part of the fun of a DSLR, getting the chance to try some oddball stuff. There's even some unusual and very high-quality new stuff being made... I'm pretty sure that you can get some of the current spectacular Voigtlander macros and Zeiss lenses in Nikon mounts, for example. (I'm tempted by the Zeiss 85mm F1.4 in Pentax mount, but just can't wrap my mind around the price tag! Though it's really not that much different than what used OEM ones go for...)

[AndrewWG]

Jeff,

It looks like you just want fast lens no matter what, but after checking out Sigmas site last night, I am frothing at the mouth for this lens:

APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM

Sure, it isn't fast, but WOW. I think the Bigma will be obsolete after this comes out. After a quick Google, I only see one dealer offering the lens as presale at $980 which is the same price as the Bigma. This is not 50-500mm like the Bigma, but the OS on a 4lb lens could be awesome! Then throw on a 1.4 or 2x converter? The bird shots should be everything I want them to be. It is to be released this month.

Also, after seeing the 30mm f1.4 shots you took, that is on my short list too. Sigma could be getting some money from me this year.... I hope it is a good year financially...

[Gdad]

Most reviews I've seen which compare the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 and the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 indicate that the Tamron bests the Sigma in sharpness and is lighter to boot.

Not to say that the Sigma is bad - but I'd lean towards the Tamron. (And did, obviously. :) ) Though I wouldn't mind something wider, but I think if I were after that, I'd go with a proper ~16-50mm F2.8 lens. (And may, one of these days.)

Welcome to the world of third party lenses! I think it's a real shame when people never try moving outside the OEM lenses. There's too many interesting third-party lenses out there, especially if you look at older primes, macros, etc. IMHO, that's part of the fun of a DSLR, getting the chance to try some oddball stuff. There's even some unusual and very high-quality new stuff being made... I'm pretty sure that you can get some of the current spectacular Voigtlander macros and Zeiss lenses in Nikon mounts, for example. (I'm tempted by the Zeiss 85mm F1.4 in Pentax mount, but just can't wrap my mind around the price tag! Though it's really not that much different than what used OEM ones go for...)

I had one Tamron lens a couple years ago - an 18-200 and sold it when I got the Nikon VR version. I also tried out the 90mm Micro which I know is sharp- just something about Tamron lenses I have never liked the feel of. Both seemed very slow, noisy, and uncertain in their ability to lock on focus. I know people love them and get great results with them it's just my personal preference. I also had a Sigma 10-20 which I sold but only due to lack of use and when I bought it I did not realize it was not a fisheye- which is what I really wanted. ;)

And I agree with you on the Zeiss- I definately can't see the price especially for manual focus. (And I really don't need another prime. :rolleyes1 )

[Master Mason]

(And I really don't need another prime. :rolleyes1 )


Sure you do, you NEED that 300mm f/2.8 you just don't know it yet.:thumbsup2

[Gdad]

Jeff,

It looks like you just want fast lens no matter what, but after checking out Sigmas site last night, I am frothing at the mouth for this lens:

APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM

Sure, it isn't fast, but WOW. I think the Bigma will be obsolete after this comes out. After a quick Google, I only see one dealer offering the lens as presale at $980 which is the same price as the Bigma. This is not 50-500mm like the Bigma, but the OS on a 4lb lens could be awesome! Then throw on a 1.4 or 2x converter? The bird shots should be everything I want them to be. It is to be released this month.

Also, after seeing the 30mm f1.4 shots you took, that is on my short list too. Sigma could be getting some money from me this year.... I hope it is a good year financially...

That 150-500 OS was what actually got me first looking at the Sigma site- then I pretty much talked myself out of it. I can't see this working well with even a 1.4X teleconverter- let alone a 2X- that would be a 700mm f9 or 1000mm f12 respectively +/- a bit.

What I eventually want to add to the mix is the Sigma 120-300/2.8 and if they come out with an OS version of it soon all the better. For now 400mm at f5.6 will be okay for now if the focus is quick and acurate to lock on and hold.

[Gdad]

Sure you do, you NEED that 300mm f/2.8 you just don't know it yet.:thumbsup2

Well sure I would take one of those. ;)

[AndrewWG]

Well, the short list for the 30mm f1.4 just got too darned short for me last night. It should be here in a few days... :cool1:

[Gdad]

Well, the short list for the 30mm f1.4 just got too darned short for me last night. It should be here in a few days... :cool1:

LOL- we are right on the same page. I sold my 80-200 yesterday so I ordered the 70-200/2.8. You are going to :love:LOVE:love: the 30/1.4- be sure to share some pictures (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1741690) when you get it.

Now I just need to find a home for my 24/2.8 so I can order the 18-50/2.8. ;)

[AndrewWG]

LOL- we are right on the same page. I sold my 80-200 yesterday so I ordered the 70-200/2.8. You are going to :love:LOVE:love: the 30/1.4- be sure to share some pictures (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1741690) when you get it.

Now I just need to find a home for my 24/2.8 so I can order the 18-50/2.8. ;)

Sweet! I will certainly share some pics in that thread when it arrives! I can't wait to give it a workout. I've been shooting some local rock band photos in a real low light bar with my 50mm f1.8 which has worked well, but could be alot better. I think the 30mm will fit the bill for this quite nicely!

[Groucho]

Looks like everyone's buying lenses. :) I just ordered the Pentax 50-135mm F2.8. I was originally going to pick up a 70-200mm F2.8 but more thinking convinced me that the extra heft and weight would actually make it a lens I'd use less often than the lighter 50-135mm. Plus, the small lens probably has better IQ than the Tamron or Sigma 70-200mm and has weathersealing and ultrasonic focusing, too. I'm really looking forward to a fully weathersealed camera. :) It also will likely replace up to three lenses in my bag (the "cheap" 50-200mm, the older high-end manual focus Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm F2.8-4.0 which is a tank, and the screw-mount 135mm F3.5.) The lens is raved about by all owners so it should be a lot of fun!

So, in the end, weight + weathersealing beat focal length for me. (Plus it's easy to crop and still get huge, nice photos with the new camera.) Next purchase will probably either be a teleconverter (basically giving almost a 70-200mm F4) or the upcoming 60-250mm F4. Or both. :lmao:

[Steve's Girl]

I just ordered the Pentax 50-135mm F2.8. I was originally going to pick up a 70-200mm F2.8 but more thinking convinced me that the extra heft and weight would actually make it a lens I'd use less often than the lighter 50-135mm.



Hmmmm... Sigma makes a 50-150 2.8 that is pretty compact and light. I had forgotten about that lens until I read your post Groucho. I want a 2.8 with more reach, but the 70-200 lenses are so huge! I don't know if I could even pick one up. I'll have to take some test shots with my 18-200 and evaluate if 150mm will be enough reach. I know I'd love to have 200mm, but I'm afraid the lens would be so big and heavy I would never use it.

[Groucho]

You can also get the Tokina version of the Pentax 50-135mm, which will have basically the same optical formula as the Pentax, but Tokina's housing - which adds a tripod mount, but doesn't have weathersealing, ultrasonic focusing, etc.

Some weights and lengths of F2.8 telephoto zooms for comparison:
Pentax 50-135mm: 24.2 oz, 5.4" x 3"
Tokina 50-135mm: 29.8 oz, 5.32" x 3.07"
Sigma 50-150mm: 27.5 oz, 5.5" x 3"
Tamron 70-200mm: 39.2 oz, ? (not released yet)
Sigma 70-200mm: 48.3 oz, 7.3" x 3.4"
Nikon 70-200mm VR: 50.2 oz, 8.5" x 3.4"
Canon 70-200mm IS: 51.84 oz, 7.8" x 3.4"

The Tamron and Sigma were the competition for my choice... and the 50-135mm is half the weight of the Sigma and still much lighter than the Tamron. It'll also be somewhat lighter than the lens I'll be replacing with it (Vivitar Series One 70-210mm F2.8-4.0, which is 30.3 oz.) (I also just played with the Vivitar a little on Sunday in prep for eBay, where they still fetch good bucks, and I probably never gave the lens a proper chance - it is really quite good for an older manual-focus zoom lens, unsurprising as it was a full "pro" lens back in the day.)

[Steve's Girl]

I ordered the 70-200/2.8.

So, Jeff, got that new lens yet? Some of us are anxiously awaiting your review. :rolleyes1

[Gdad]

I drive by these two ospreys every week- so I finally decided to stop and take a few pictures. All pictures taken with the D300 & the Sigma 70-200/2.8 & 2X Teleconverter which makes it an effective 140-400mm f5.6. Most of these are pretty heavily cropped as well.

http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281841479_bH7oG-O.jpg

Bad hair day- this one decided it did not like me right away.
http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281841693_3guHE-O.jpg

http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281841677_aXrX2-O.jpg

And flew off as I approached-
http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281841576_Zs2tw-O.jpg

The other- however- was happy to pose for me-
http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281841681_Ri7nc-O.jpg

http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281841926_g8pQE-O.jpg

The first one flew around a bit- always watching me-
http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281841783_KrxvG-O.jpg

Extremely cropped-
http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281841941_qjf2u-O.jpg

Guess who?
http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281841916_hnUhB-O.jpg

http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281842033_mvmB6-O.jpg

Really extremely cropped-
http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281842119_oRDt9-O.jpg

The non-social one came back as soon as it saw me heading for the car-
http://scl.smugmug.com/photos/281842057_9ZkyH-O.jpg

Thanks for looking-

[YEKCIM]

Wow! Looks like the new lens, the D300, and Gdad were made for each other. Nice shots.

~E

[handicap18]

Nice work Jeff. That Sigma looks like a great deal. Even with the 2x converter the images are pretty sharp.

[wdwmom2]

Very nice! Really like the "guess who" photo, too cute!

[t1gger1968]

Decision making time. Dh gave me the go ahead to get a lens for our camera - a Canon XTi with the lens kit, and I also have the Canon 50mm f/1.8. I would like to replace the kit lens with another lens, preferably to become my walk around lens. I have narrowed it down to the following lens but can only buy one...

1. Sigma 24-70mm (I had narrowed it down to this until I read some not-so-good review on this one!)
2. Tamron 28-75
3. Canon 28-135mm
4. Sigma 18-200mm

Hoping to make the purchase before our summer vacation at the end of June, and also will take the lens to WDW in October. I also take pictures of my dd and stepkids - karate, t-ball, soccer, dance recital, ice skating, and gymnastics. So we take both outdoor and indoor pictures..can one lens really do it all?

Which one would you recommend and why?

[Master Mason]

Decision making time. Dh gave me the go ahead to get a lens for our camera - a Canon XTi with the lens kit, and I also have the Canon 50mm f/1.8. I would like to replace the kit lens with another lens, preferably to become my walk around lens. I have narrowed it down to the following lens but can only buy one...

1. Sigma 24-70mm (I had narrowed it down to this until I read some not-so-good review on this one!)
2. Tamron 28-75
3. Canon 28-135mm
4. Sigma 18-200mm

Hoping to make the purchase before our summer vacation at the end of June, and also will take the lens to WDW in October. I also take pictures of my dd and stepkids - karate, t-ball, soccer, dance recital, ice skating, and gymnastics. So we take both outdoor and indoor pictures..can one lens really do it all?

Which one would you recommend and why?

Based on your needs I would cross the 18-200 off your list, the apeture will be too small for you to freeze action at most ice skating rinks and dance recitals. I think that the 28-135 would probably suffer the same results.

That leaves 1 and 2. I know people that have both and are very happy with them. The only complaint I have ever heard on either was that occationally you'll get a sigma 24-70 that either front or back focuses, but everyone I know that has had that said that said they sent it it and it came back wonderful. I have the canon version, and I love it as my walk around lens, although it is heavy.

Honestly, your really going to need another lens in the long run though, because your going to want more reach than either option 1 or 2 will give you, something on the range of a 70-200 f/2.8. But you can get one and then save for the next :)

[SonyaM]

I agree, for things like that you will want more reach. I have the Tamron, and love it. LOVE love it. I use it for 90% of my paid sessions. But I don't get paid to shoot events like those you mentioned. You will eventually want a 70-200 2.8 for the reach. 75mm just won't get you very close.

[Code]

All the events you listed seem like you need a good telephoto rather than a standard zoom...

But... as far as walk around lenses go, I lean toward the wide end (especially @ WDW) and don't think 24mm is quite wide enough, so I would recommend either the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 or, if you're feeling really spendy, the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. I think Tamron has a 17-50 also? Anyway, merely personal preference...

[webshark3]

I love my Tamron 28-75, but it starts to drag on you over a full day (and it's one of the smallest/lighest in that class).

I too prefer wide angle, and would try a Tamron 18-55 for a walk-around if I had to choose. Those fast zooms are still pretty heavy though.

[Furgus]

Another vote for the Tamron. Tack sharp throughout all apertures and focal length. I think I have taken it off my camera once in the 6 months I have had it.
Here is an example.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3153/2444192311_5c7384c249.jpg

(it helps to have a good model :) )

[DizzyV6P]

I'll going to be selling my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 shortly. Great lense and was my walkaround lens for almost a year. It's now been replace by the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Also a super sharp lens. For me, I missed the "wideness" so I picked up the Tamron. Both are great lenses and I've been lucky to have two that don't have any focus issues.

Indoor shots will be needed the f/2.8 if they don't allow flash. That includes most dance studios and especially during a recital. However, depending on where you are, not even the 28-75 f/2.8 will be long enough. You'll have to consider a 70-200 f/2.8 ($$$$$$) to really get some of the nice shots. So, in answer to your question, no, one lens can NOT do it all....really well.

The new Sigma 18-200 OS has gotten some really good reviews and for the price, it is a nice walkaround lens. However, for low light shots, nothing beats something that f/2.8 or better. it is however, a decent compromise.

I found the Canon 28-135 to be somewhat soft. I sold mine to get the 28-75 which was tact sharp. And now I use the 17-50 f/2.8 all the time and the 28-75 sits in my 2nd camera bag waiting for sale..lol. I've heard mixed reviews about the Sigma 24-70 as well, but not having used that particular lense, I can't give much advice on it.

Here's a sample pic from the 17-50 f/2.8 :)
http://images20.fotki.com/v380/photos/5/54353/6120121/KatiePics004-vi.jpg

Here's a sample pic from the 28-75 f/2.8. Like I said, both VERY good lenses. Just different lengths for your own personal tastes.
http://images30.fotki.com/v472/photos/5/54353/5522382/ASCI3-vi.jpg

Good luck w/ your choice :)

[Suburbanmom]

I have the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 with a Nikon mount and I love it. I bought it with portraits in mind, but it's become my walk-around lens too. Here's a shot I took the day after I got the lens:

Nikon D50; f/2.8; 24-70mm at 65mm
http://amyhenkel.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p785142840-4.jpg

[jann1033]

figuring it would cost about the same but can only afford one hopefully in the near future so the other would have to wait a little longer. guess i am wondering if anyone has ever compared the two ( the photos i see with the 55 are really good, just haven't seen them up close and personal)

pros of new lens = IS, more reach, lighter weight
cons= wondering if the color/contrast etc would be as good, aperture:really need some lower light lenses but don't see anything even in the ballpark of my wallet

pros of old lens= better build, probably an edge in IQ but don't really know since haven't compared the two personally, can use my teleconverter with it, cross points work with it, really like it for close up work as it's very sharp and you can stand 5 ft away ;)
cons= heavy for me to hand hold so i need at least a monopod with it, could cost more to fix than the other lens( have yet to get a really firm estimate on it but if i can't find someone other than canon would be over $185 to fix, I've read of a few lenses' repair costing more than they are worth so there is the chance I'd be flushing the $185 down the drain and still not have a working lens.)

[bob100]

figuring it would cost about the same but can only afford one hopefully in the near future so the other would have to wait a little longer. guess i am wondering if anyone has ever compared the two ( the photos i see with the 55 are really good, just haven't seen them up close and personal)

pros of new lens = IS, more reach, lighter weight
cons= wondering if the color/contrast etc would be as good, aperture:really need some lower light lenses but don't see anything even in the ballpark of my wallet

pros of old lens= better build, probably an edge in IQ but don't really know since haven't compared the two personally, can use my teleconverter with it, cross points work with it, really like it for close up work as it's very sharp and you can stand 5 ft away ;)
cons= heavy for me to hand hold so i need at least a monopod with it, could cost more to fix than the other lens( have yet to get a really firm estimate on it but if i can't find someone other than canon would be over $185 to fix, I've read of a few lenses' repair costing more than they are worth so there is the chance I'd be flushing the $185 down the drain and still not have a working lens.)

I don't know but from what I have seen the 55-250 is a sharp lens and a good value at $200- $250, but probably you should get an estimate on fixing the old lens, you can do a search on www.photography-on-the.net/forum for comparisons

[Chikabowa]

I would rent the lens you don't have just for the opportunity to use it prior to purchase.
However, I've only heard wonderful things about the 70-200 f4, so my best is you'll be hard pressed to buy the other lens and find the same quality.

[jann1033]

I don't know but from what I have seen the 55-250 is a sharp lens and a good value at $200- $250, but probably you should get an estimate on fixing the old lens, you can do a search on www.photography-on-the.net/forum for comparisons

i have gotten estimates but the way canon "estimates" you have to pay $185 for them to open the lens up to see what is really wrong then give you the actual estimate of what it costs to fix it. since the $185 doesn't include any parts and my mount is bent i know if will be more, the canon rep i spoke to dropped the figure "$300 or more" . if you don't get it fixed , you lose the $185. some posts i have seen on forums as to fixing that lens have been up to the cost of the lens( course those are probably the ones with a bad experience since most don't post good experiences:rotfl:)Keh gave me an estimate of $110 for basic cleaning and calibration but minus the mount charge since no one seems to be able to tell meeven a ballpark of how much it would cost to replace. It appears not a lot of places fix canon lenses. the only other ones i found online but have't tried yet are Midwest and i think adorama fixes them. i can't find a local one ( they just send it to canon so i get to pay them $$ plus canon's fee)

[mabas9395]

If it were anyone else, I would tell them to weigh the pros and cons carefully (which you already have). But since its you, and having read all your posts about the problems with your lenses, I say sell them all and switch to Nikon.

I don't say that as a Nikon fan. I say that as a Canon fan who hopes you finally find a system that works for you (and that your bad luck with lenses stops giving the Canon brand a bad name).

[edolyne]

jann, seems like you just can't catch a break with the canon equipment that you own. I am sorry to hear about all of your difficulties.

My suggestion would be to really sit down and weigh your options with switching to another brand as Canon just doesn't seem to be working for you and you are without your equipment so much. I know that switching is a pain as I have done it a few times but if it means having reliable equipment it might just be the right choice. The great advantage to switching now is that there are a TON of great cameras on the market or coming to market. We have all seen the Pentax which is coming out and Olympus is set to make an announcement in regards to their micro 4/3's in only a few days now.

[jann1033]

if everyone who had a problem with canon's repair service switched systems canon would be out of business. if they have a bad name for repair it's due to their lousy repair not because of me. google it sometimes, i am far from the only one who has had problems with canon service...most of which are with their top of the line lenses too. i did check into changing systems before i upgraded my body. however, i can't really get enough for what i have now to get the body and lenses comparable to what i have now or i want.

however that doesn't really have anything to do with my original ? which was opinions on options for the 2 lenses.

[jfinke]

Have you tried looking for a good used replacement 70-200L? You can usually find them for under $500.

Then, maybe you can sell your old one for a couple hundred and let someone else have the headache? Don't know what the market would be for that.

My problem is that I purchased an L and everything else just pales in comparison. I have other lens that are sharp. But, the autofocus and build quality are quite nice.

[pointandshoot]

Canon's 70-200mm lenses are their "bread and butter". All lenses they offer in that class have outstanding ratings, reputations, and user reviews. I love my f/2.8 IS and continue to be amazed at the details it captures. The 70-200mm offerings seem to be the object of desire for most Canon shooters.

If it is just your mount that is broken and you feel the lens is a good copy and the glass it clean, I would fix it. You will get back a calibrated 70-200mm as good as new.

It sounds like its size might be a bit of an issue for you. If you are not using it as much as you think you should and a lighter lens makes sense, it might be time to buy a different lens. On lens quality alone, I would keep the 70-200mm. Great build, great lens, and a bit faster than your other option.

I just had 40D repaired by Canon. It came back better than new. The quality of the repair work is not a worry to me. It is stressful going into a situation where you could be out some money and not knowing what the final bill we be. It is like the auto repair place charging you to look at your car then tacking on the parts and labor later.

One way to look at it is what will you do with the lens if you buy a new one. If you repair it, you have the option to recover at least those costs through resale/auction.

Best of luck!

Chuck

[Quicklabs]

Sure complicates my decisions about next camera. There's a lot I like about DX and that's why I'm still on the fence about the D700. I do love some of my DX glass as well, my Siggy 10-20 and the dirty thirty.
7fps is important to me for shooting at agility trials. Will need to see what that ISO 3200 looks like. I also like the expansion downward to ISO 100. I also like the dual memory card slots. The video might good just for grins.

The 70-200 is now a VR II and goes for $2400!!! VR II and a ZOOM LOCK SWITCH have also been added to the 18-200mm.

On the B&H and Ritz Camera site:


Announced by Nikon Today!
The All New D300s Is Available for Pre-Order Now, Shipping Dates Will Be Announced Soon
The rugged D300S' hallmarks include versatility, speed, agility and exceptional image quality. Versatility is its 12.3-megapixel, DX-format CMOS image sensor, with Nikon EXPEED image processing that captures stunning low-noise stills and extraordinary 24 fps, 720p HD video with sound. Speed is split-second startup and continuous shooting at up to 7 fps-8 fps with the optional MB-D10 grip, which also extends shooting capacity and makes shooting more comfortable. Accurate image review, Live View shooting and Menus come alive on a 3-inch tempered glass-protected, 920k-dot LCD monitor, while image quality is bolstered by a 51-area AF system and Nikon's 1,005-pixel RGB exposure sensor, in concert with the newly accelerated Scene Recognition System-technology that increases exposure and AF accuracy, improves white balance detection, and more. Photographers have preferences, and the D300S offers choices-including Picture Control, Center-Weighted and Spot Metering, user-assignable CompactFlash and SD card slots and an external stereo microphone input. Included is Nikon ViewNX software-ready to process rich 14-bit NEF (RAW) or JPEG files. For more editing power, optional Capture NX 2, with U-Point technology, safeguards image quality and speeds workflow. The D300S' pro-level performance, paired with world-famous NIKKOR lenses, was engineered to exceed the expectations of demanding photographers.

Nikon's D300s. Fast. Precise. Agile. Evolution in Motion.


•12.3-megapixel DX-format CMOS Image Sensor
Delivers stunning high resolution, low-noise images with striking detail and tonal gradation.

•Continuous Shooting up to 7 fps
High speed shooting and fast response-essential to versatile performance in a wide variety of shooting disciplines.

•Nikon EXPEED Image Processing
Drives breathtakingly rich image fidelity, low noise and fast image processing.

•D-Movie HD Video
Capture cinematic 24 fps, 720p HD movie clips, enhanced by NIKKOR interchangeable lens quality and versatility-featuring stereo Mic input and AF

•One-button Live View
Handheld and Tripod Live View modes, activated with one button, for challenging studio and remote shooting conditions.

•3-inch Super-density 920,000-dot VGA LCD Monitor
Every monitor is factory-calibrated to assure accurate color for critical still image review and Live View or D-Movie shooting.

•Low Noise ISO Sensitivity from 200 to 3200
Additional expanded ISO settings of Lo-1 (ISO 100 equivalent) and Hi-1 (ISO 6400 equivalent) extend versatility to match shooting requirements.

•Fast, Accurate 51-point Autofocus
Features 4 Dynamic AF modes including 3D Focus Tracking for precise autofocus and razor sharp images.

•1,005-Pixel 3D Color Matrix Metering II
Nikon?s unique RGB metering-the only sensor that also evaluates color information when determining exposures with remarkable accuracy.

•Scene Recognition System
Referencing an onboard image database and teamed with RGB metering, SRS enables even more sophisticated determination of exposures and auto white balance, along with faster, more accurate autofocus.

•Dual memory card slots (CF and SD)
Assign card functions from a variety of storage options, optimizing available memory and file handling.

•Dynamic Integrated Dust Reduction System
Ultrasonic process combats the accumulation of dust in front of the image sensor, safeguarding image quality.

•Picture Control
Select from 4 preset image capture preferences (Standard, Neutral, Vivid an Monochrome, plus 9 user customizable settings) control settings) controlling Sharpening, Contrast, Brightness, Saturation and Hue.

•Nikon's Active D-Lighting
Optimize shadow and highlight detail in real time - Selectable values and 5-frame ADL bracketing offer complete control.

•In-Camera Image Editing
Exclusive in-camera image editing, featuring Edit movie, D-Lighting, Image Overlay, Monochrome, NEF(RAW) processing and more. Rugged and Durable
The strength and precision of magnesium-alloy construction with advanced dust and moisture countermeasures is teamed with a shutter with a shutter mechanism tested to beyond 150,000 cycles for real-world reliability.

•100% Viewfinder Accuracy

•Virtual Horizon Graphic Level Indicator

•Up to 950 shots per EN-EL3e battery charge

[Quicklabs]

Fast f/2.8 Zoom-NIKKOR lens
Perfect for sports, photojournalism and wildlife photography.
Nikon VR II (Vibration Reduction) image stabilization
Vibration Reduction, engineered specifically for each VR NIKKOR lens, enables handheld shooting at up to 4 shutter speeds slower than would otherwise be possible, assuring dramatically sharper images.
7 Extra-low Dispersion (ED) elements
Offers superior sharpness and color correction by effectively minimizing chromatic aberration, even at the widest aperture settings.
Nano Crystal Coat
Further reduces ghosting and flare for even greater image clarity.
Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC)
Enhances light transmission and offers superior color consistency and reduced flare.
Exclusive Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
Enables fast, accurate, and quiet autofocus.
Rounded 9-blade diaphragm
Renders more natural appearance of out-of-focus image elements.
Internal Focus (IF)
Provides fast and quiet autofocus without changing the length of the lens, retaining subject-working distance through the focus range.
Focuses to 4.6 feet
Close focusing provided throughout the entire zoom range for extended versatility.
M/A focus mode switch
Enables quick response to changing situations between manual and autofocus operation.
Flower-shaped lens hood
Included HB-48 lens hood—shades the objective from unwanted, image-degrading light

18-200
11x Zoom versatility
A remarkable 18-200mm one-lens solution—adept in a wide variety of situations. Picture angle equivalent of a 27-300mm lens in 35mm format.
Nikon VR II (Vibration Reduction) image stabilization
Vibration Reduction, engineered specifically for each VR NIKKOR lens, enables handheld shooting at up to 4 shutter speeds slower than would otherwise be possible, assuring dramatically sharper images.
Two Extra-low Dispersion (ED) elements
Offers superior sharpness and color correction by effectively minimizing chromatic aberration, even at wide aperture settings.
Three aspherical lens elements
Virtually eliminates coma and other aberrations, even at wide apertures.
Zoom lock switch
Secures lens barrel at its minimum length.
Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC)
Enhances light transmission and offers superior color consistency and reduced flare.
Exclusive Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
For fast, accurate and quiet autofocus.
Rounded 7-blade diaphragm
Renders more natural appearance of out-of-focus image elements.
Focus to 20 inches
Extends versatility.
M/A focus mode switch
Enables quick response to changing situations between manual and autofocus operation.
Flower-shaped lens hood

[mabas9395]

In camera RAW editing? I don't get that one.

[YesDear]

It has the same ISO settings as the D300. The D300 also has the low and the high setting.

[Gdad]

Aside from adding video I don't see the 300s as much of an upgrade. :confused3

[oregondaddyof2]

Aside from adding video I don't see the 300s as much of an upgrade. :confused3

I see two upgrades.... The video and the price :rotfl::rotfl2:

[oregondaddyof2]

I want them both... Anyone have an extra $3500 you want to give me? :lmao:

[ssanders79]

Here is a blog posting on the new Nikon gear from Scott Kelby
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2009/archives/5827

[Chikabowa]

I haven't seen any reviews on the new 70-200, have you? I'm curious if it's worth the upgrade from the VR I technology I currently have.

[Suburbanmom]

I can't imagine the 70-200 being any better, unless it's lighter :)
can't wait to hear some reviews, though.

[Quicklabs]

sI can't imagine the 70-200 being any better, unless it's lighter :)
can't wait to hear some reviews, though.

[fitzperry]

I see two upgrades.... The video and the price :rotfl::rotfl2:

B&H lists the price as $1799.95 (body only), same as the D300 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/635645-REG/Nikon__D300s_SLR_Digital_Camera.html)

I seem to be in the minority of dslr users on this, but I'd love to have the video capability.

[Chikabowa]

LOL... yeah, but I could sell the one I have right now for about $1800 (which is actually a $300 from the price when I bought it!) since the current going rate on that lens is about $2000-$2100. :)

But I'm just wondering if it's worth the upgrade or not. I splurged on a bunch of lenses back in January when the Nikon price increase rumor hit. I'm glad I did because I saved myself a ton of money, but at the same time, it makes you sad to see new technology come out and be left behind!

(I'm totally the 'must have the coolest gadget around' crowd)

[Gdad]

I would like video also- but not enough to spring for a new camera right now or when the D700s comes out. I'm thinking when the D90 is replaced I may see if I can pick up a used one cheap.

[MarkBarbieri]

I can't imagine the 70-200 being any better, unless it's lighter :)
can't wait to hear some reviews, though.

My guess is that it is optimized for FX rather than DX use. The prior 70-200 is often said to have been optimized for DX use.

[mabas9395]

LOL... yeah, but I could sell the one I have right now for about $1800 (which is actually a $300 from the price when I bought it!) since the current going rate on that lens is about $2000-$2100. :)


You'll probably see the resell value of the older version go down a bit from where its been before. The market will be flooded with a lot of people trying to upgrade. At the same time, thats good new for someone in the market for a used older version.

[Chikabowa]

My guess is that it is optimized for FX rather than DX use. The prior 70-200 is often said to have been optimized for DX use.

Eh.
There is a LITTLE vignetting, but I like it. I would actually hate to loose it honestly. It's no worse than you'd see with film.

[Chikabowa]

You'll probably see the resell value of the older version go down a bit from where its been before. The market will be flooded with a lot of people trying to upgrade. At the same time, thats good new for someone in the market for a used older version.

That's probably true. I hadn't thought of that.
I love it though... and Mark is right... I'm sure it is optimized for the FX, and I don't want to loose my vignetting, so I'm keeping it. :)

[Suburbanmom]

I agree about the vingetting....has a certain charm.

[Coach]

Not to ruffle any feathers but I’m old school and if I want to take videos I’ll use my video camera and if I want to take stills I’ll use my still camera… I’ll just wait for the D400 thank you.

[YesDear]

Yeah, but I want a cell phone that works as a good phone not a camera or video!

[ssanders79]

Not to ruffle any feathers but I’m old school and if I want to take videos I’ll use my video camera and if I want to take stills I’ll use my still camera… I’ll just wait for the D400 thank you.

While I do not have a dslr w. video, I have seen a few videos taken with nifty-50s and the video looks great. Your traditional video camera will not have the same depth of field that you can get with these new dslr+videos.

I would consider a body with video as I rarely pull out my video camera as it is too much of a hastle and I prefer photography. Howerver, it would be cool to have the capability to shoot quality video for those I wish I had a video camera moments.

[MarkBarbieri]

I see two upgrades.... The video and the price :rotfl::rotfl2:

The "s". Don't forget the "s".

[MarkBarbieri]

Not to ruffle any feathers but I’m old school and if I want to take videos I’ll use my video camera and if I want to take stills I’ll use my still camera… I’ll just wait for the D400 thank you.

Having a video cable DSLR, I'm telling you to keep an open mind. It doesn't replace a normal video camera (at least none of the current models do), but it can do things that an affordable normal video camera can't - shallow DOF, extreme low light, interchangeable lenses.

It also comes in handy as a second camera. I used my regular video camera and the video capability of my DSLR as a two camera setup for recording a school play. With the video camera, I got wide shots and with the DSLR I got close-ups. It was great having a second camera.

For day-to-day video, though, it's just not that useful. Maintaining focus is a challenge. The on-camera mic is even more worthless than a normal on-camera mic (and that's a really low bar). Smooth zooms are almost impossible. The lack of an articulating LCD screen is annoying. Not having a built-in ND filter is annoying. Exposure control, while possible now that they've upgraded the firmware, is still lousy if you have to make adjustments during a shot. No zebras, no peaking, no knee control, etc. It's amazing for what it does, but it supplements rather than replaces a regular video camera.

[MarkBarbieri]

I know almost nothing about Nikon release cycles. Does this mean that the rumored 700x won't be released until at least the Spring? In the Canon world, there are usually only two releases a year.

[tjl1388]

The only other "upgrade" I see besides the video is the ability to use CF and SD cards at the same time. It would be nice to have a backup memory source.

No where near enough for me to upgrade from my D300. My next purchase is a 14-24 2.8.:thumbsup2

[handicap18]

Unless you really really really want video, I'd find the regular D300 on the discount shelves. Sure the extra SD card slot is nice, but with an 8GB card I can get well over 600 images which is more than 25 rolls of 24 exposure film.

7 fps vs 6 fps isn't a big difference. Having the option of 8 fps with the battery grip is nice.

Maybe if they clean up the high ISO, but the D300 is one of the highest rated crop dSLR's for high ISO.

Even when a D400 comes out in another 2 or so years, what more can they add... maybe 15MP, but that is realllllly pushing the limit of the crop sensor. Maybe auto focus with the video.

I say go find the D300 now while they are depleting inventory for the D300s. Or just get the D700.

[tjl1388]

At some point people have to realize that it is not all about the body and that it is just as much about the lens.

I have seen more improvement in my photography due to learning how to properly use the camera and utilize the different lenses for their abilities.

[Lost n' Translation]

I'm thinking of renting a 70-200 2.8 for my October trip. I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8, so I have the wide end covered. I think the 70-200 would allow me to get some different perspectives of the parks. Do you think that there whould be enough shooting opportunities to use this lens?

[TestTrackBoy]

I use a Nikon 70-200mm at the parks and love it. I use it during parades to get right up on the performers. I also get nice bokeh shots using this lens too. If your serious in getting nice and different photos I would get the lens.

[Lost n' Translation]

That's what I was thinking. I would be able to fill the frames on the shots without having to crop 100's of pics.

[disneyboy2003]

The 70-200mm lens comes in handy for the Kilimanjaro Safaris at Animal Kingdom and for Fantasmic at Hollywood Studios. I've also used it at a few shows in front of Cinderella's Castle, when I was standing a little further back from stage.

You can also use it during "Wishes" to get a closer shot of Tinkerbell to see if she's really a girl! :rolleyes1

[AndrewWG]

I also bring mine into the parks but I would add that I don't bring it in every day. I certainly bring it (and my teleconverter) to AK. It is great there. The other parks I will make a decision in the morning as to whether or not I want to lug it around with me. It is a big lens and adds some significant extra weight to the camera bag and camera. It is a bit much to carry around, BUT the shots you can get with it are worth it many cases.

[MarkBarbieri]

I love taking a 70-200 f/2.8 to the parks. It's on the bulky side, but I love the focal range. My favorite uses are shows (FotLK, Nemo, LM). I also love it for taking pictures of people and characters. The wide aperture gives great isolation. It's not something that I bring every day because of the bulk and weight, but I take it frequently.

[dioxide45]

The lens will be a bear to lug around. If you are wanting to take evening photos or photos of some of the indoor shows without a flash this would be a needed lens to get the zoom you want. You could just buy a Canon - 55-250mm f/4-5.6 Telephoto Zoom if it is only daytime shots you are looking for. It is much smaller in size. It won't give you the same great photos, but should meet most basic needs. It would also be something you would be able to keep instead of turning it back in after your trip.

My wife has the lens you are looking to rent and just bought the one I mentioned specifically for taking on trips to WDW and other areas. The size of her other lens and 1.4 extender makes it difficult to travel with.

[jfinke]

I tend to use my f/4 mostly in AK. Otherwise, I am usually shooting wider. Though I think I tend to carry everything anyways, just in case.

[Steve's Girl]

I take my 70-200 with me into the parks most days. I have a backpack camera bag and really don't mind carrying it at all. I love it for close ups of various performers, my kids, characters, etc.

[DisneySuiteFreak]

The new version has VRII which supposedly allows up to 4 shutter stops as opposed to the older one which allows up to 3. Anything else besides price difference? I'm seriously thinking of getting one of these...Leaning toward the older model as it's several hundy's cheaper. Thoughts? I'm bummed that I didn't buy it when it was several hundred dollars cheaper for the old one from what it's priced now:sad2:...Also what teleconverter will work with the old one, since that's the one I'm probably going to get. :rolleyes1

[VVFF]

The new version has VRII which supposedly allows up to 4 shutter stops as opposed to the older one which allows up to 3. Anything else besides price difference? I'm seriously thinking of getting one of these...Leaning toward the older model as it's several hundy's cheaper. Thoughts? I'm bummed that I didn't buy it when it was several hundred dollars cheaper for the old one from what it's priced now:sad2:...Also what teleconverter will work with the old one, since that's the one I'm probably going to get. :rolleyes1

The teleconverter won't change between the two lenses. either a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter will work find with a loss of either 1 or 2 stops for the aperture.

[GrillMouster]

If you find a good price on the old 70-200, grab it.

When Nikon first released full-frame (FX) bodies a few people noticed that the old 70-200 had some slight vignetting on the edge of the frame. The new 70-200 is supposed to correct that. If you're shooting a crop-body (DX), the 70-200 is fantastic. As a matter of fact, most of the people I know shooting with a FX body haven't really complained about the old 70-200.

[YesDear]

I concur with Grill Mouster. I have the 70-200 and it was the best money I have spent to date on glass. I think the next best is when I get a D700.

I know that Susan uses the "old" version on her D3 and likes it. I think Jeff did not like his and sold it.

[Gdad]

Er- yeah- I sold mine. Two actually- but not for any reason aside from I hated lugging them around. It does vignette a bit on FX but nothing I found to be objectionable.

You will need an AF-S teleconverter.

[Chikabowa]

I love my 70-200. I'd probably make a little bed for it to sleep right next to me if my DH didn't think I'm nuts. :) (that was a joke...)

Honestly, it's my go-to lens. I use it all.the.time.
Personally, I LOVE the vignetting. It's my favorite feature of the lens and I would cry if it went away.

While it has a fast aperture, sometimes it's slow to focus and sometimes it will search for focus... but unless you are shooting professionally, I doubt it's something the regular shooter would notice, honestly. And finding contrast in your scene really helps with that issue.

I know that I can hand-hold the lens down to about 1/20 shutter - I've heard that is much lower than most people can though. But I have extremely steady hands and don't have much issue with camera shake.

The compression is to die for and the bokeh is g.o.r.g.e.o.u.s.

The cons... it's heavy. With the 70-200, D3 and an SB-800 all loaded up, it can weigh in close to 9 pounds. I'm used to it now so it doesn't phase me, but that is the biggest complaint I hear from people. It can put a lot of stress on you hands/arms (and neck, but I have a hand strap, so I don't deal with the neck pain).

Honestly... if you can find one used and in good condition... pick it up. They are hard and they hold their value really well.

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Thank you all for your input! Now I have to go either sweet talk the hubby or work twice as much to pay for it! :eek: :laughing:

[scoot241]

Does anyone have experience with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8? I'm thinking about a lens in this focal length but can't find a whole lot about it.

[My2Girls66]

Try this...
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=212371

[saturndb]

you can read this review:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/


Dave pirate:

[Docsknotinn]

DPreview tends to be a bit biased against Canon. There is a ton of information available on the Canon 70-200's as they make four variants. You may want to consider a used Canon 70-200 as they are very popular and easy to find.
Here is a couple of reviews for the Sigma 70-200's. For Canon reviews you may want to consider other web sites like Fred Miranda etc.
If you can find the review for the exact lens you are interested in on photozone IMO their reviews are excellent as they test them on each brand and body series instead of just a generic review for all mounts.
The buy/sell forum on FM is a good place to watch for used gear.


http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=318&sort=7&cat=37&page=3

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/324-sigma-af-70-200mm-f28-ex-apo-hsm-dg-lab-test-report--review

[gruZ]

I've owned two of them - one for a Canon mount and now one for a Nikon mount - and I have been extremely pleased with both copies. They are both very sharp, the AF is very fast, very quiet, and spot-on accurate. They are built like tanks, and for the value (compared to the Canon / Nikon versions) I don't think you can beat them.

A friend had the Tamron version and recently sold it to purchase a Sigma (he uses a Sony DSLR). He liked the IQ of the Tamron, but thought the AF was slow and not very reliable. I know the dpreview of these lenses had the same conclusions when comparing the Sigma and the Tamrom. He also is very pleased with his recent change.

By the way, when I sold the Canon version (which was almost 2 years old at the time I sold itt) I got about 75% of the initial purchase price back.

[chrispat]

I have this lens as well, and it's great. It is very quiet as mentioned above. It is VERY heavy though for something you are carting around traveling. Sigma is a great lens, at a great price, I would love it I could have afforded the VR version but it just wasn't in the money books.

We are looking at a new lens too, either a sigma 28-300 or 18-250, I will probably get the 18-250 though as I can always crop it if need be.

[ogreenlee]

I'd get the Sigma 2.8 over the Canon 4.0. I like the extra wide open, and that Sigma gets great reviews.

I have the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS, and I just luuuuuuv it. It's a hard weight to get used to, and I'm not sure that I'm willing to carry it around Disney on an all day venture, but I'll definitely be taking it with me on our short excursions out and about while there!

I saved up for it, but if I wasn't able to get that one, I'd definitely go with that Sigma. Some folks would disagree, but I like that shallow depth of field.

[saturndb]

I have a Canon 70-200 f/4 tripod collar if someone wants it. It is a non Canon brand and it looks brand new. This was given to me and I have the f 2.8 version. If interested just PM me and I'll send it to you.

[prowlerregal335m]

PM sent

[Docarino]

A question for anyone who has used the canon f4 70-200 IS- I just got this lens today and was surprised by how noisy the image stabilization system was. Is this how it is supposed to sound? I'm not overly bothered by it but I wanted to make sure this was typical and there's not something wrong with the lens that I received. Thanks!

[Altair]

Auto Focus makes alot of noise. I didn't think IS made noise.

[AndrewWG]

The IS makes noise but you better be in a real quiet room to hear it, otherwise it may have a problem. The AF certainly does make noise loud enough to hear almost anywhere, but not overly bothersome to me. I use the f2.8 version of the lens, but I am sure they are basically the same when it comes to sounds.

[Docarino]

I'm fairly certain it's the IS. It's still present even when I use MF so it's not the AF. It's a soft spinning noise that comes on when I press the shutter release halfway down and it lasts for about 2 seconds after I release the shutter button and then there's a louder click of it turning off. It doesn't really bother me, I just want to make sure nothing is broken.

[AndrewWG]

Yeah, that would be the IS. It is probably fine. In a quiet room, I can hear mine doing the same thing.

[Docarino]

Thanks so much :)

[Red_Rider]

Ok, so I'm hoping to approach the wife about buying another lens for our trip in September. I currently have a Sigma 24-70 F2.8 and I was looking for something to get a longer range for both on our trip and outside taking photos at home with the kids.

I was wondering if anyone has this lens and would recommend it. Also, with the weight of the lens, can you still have it attached to the camera and still throw your camera over your shoulder using the strap from our camera? I have a Canon Xsi....

Any info would be great!!!

Thanks!!!

[boBQuincy]

I carry a XSI and sometimes have a 70-200 f/4 on it. The combination is not too heavy to carry on your shoulder although I rarely carry it that way, preferring to wrap the strap around my wrist and hold the setup by the lens.

One more point, I do not like using it on a tripod with all that weight hanging off the front of a camera with a plastic body so I highly recommend getting the lens tripod collar. The black one works as well as the white one, for a lot less $$$ (but also less cool points).

[Shutterbug]

I have it on my 40D and like it very much. This was my walk around lens at the Honda Indy 200 last summer. I had it around my neck all day long and did not find it to be all that heavy. For the price it is a great lens!

Now having said that....there might be some that will say to save up and get F4 IS (which is double the price) and some even more to spring for the 2.8 IS model.

For me when I bought mine. My budget mandated just F4 non IS. Plus at the time most of the stuff I shot at that distance was moving objects, like cars.
IMO IS will not help you with moving objects, only stationary.

Then the 2.8 version of the lens...way to heavy to have around my neck all day long.

Now though, having more money I would get the IS version..but if I had waited till now to get that lens I would have missed thousands of shots in that time period.

So my opinion, if your budget can handle it get the F4 IS.
If you can only afford the F4 I think you will enjoy the shots you will get with it. I know I do :thumbsup2

The other option is...renting the lens for a week or two to try it out.
Thats what I did. I rented from lensrentals.com

[Shutterbug]

One more point, I do not like using it on a tripod with all that weight hanging off the front of a camera with a plastic body so I highly recommend getting the lens tripod collar. The black one works as well as the white one, for a lot less $$$ (but also less cool points).

Is that the canon tripod collar or an offbrand?
I am looking to get one myself.

[boBQuincy]

Is that the canon tripod collar or an offbrand?
I am looking to get one myself.

I like OEM stuff so I bought the Canon collar. To get the "cheap" one buy:

"Tripod Mount Ring A(B)" for 200mm f/2.8L II.

[annnewjerz]

I know, it's the same old story as usual. I get a lens, I try the lens and ultimately I'm not satisfied it. I have been literally DROOLING over this lens for two years since getting my first dSLR and now that I've got it---I'm kind of not in love with it. :confused:

Do I like the IQ of the lens? Indeed, this can be RAZOR sharp. Can it produce nice lovely bokeh? Yep. Unfortunately it just didn't click with me like my Sigma 30 did. Heck, even my newly acquired manual focus 50mm f/1.2 has "spoken" to me more, with its extremely shallow DOF.

Chances are, I just need to give it some time, but here are some things I'm not particularly crazy over:

1. The fact that it's a zoom. Because I haven't used a zoom in such a long time (my last real zoom was my kit lens), it just seems awkward to use.
2. The fact that it's 70mm at the widest end. I am not a particularly wide shooter, but I feel like in a lot of situations where other people are around or I don't have a lot of room to work, 70mm is a bit tight on a crop sensor.
3. The color and contrast the lens produces is nice, but not nearly as contrasty as my Sigma 30, which I LOVE.

When we are currently trying to pay off credit cards, do renovations at the house and buy me a new car---does it really make sense to hold onto an expensive piece of camera equipment that doesn't really get much use?

I want to love it, I reeeeeeally do, but at this point it's just something that is taking up a lot of room in my camera bag and not much else.

Ugh. :headache:

[lap3]

Wow! You're the first Nikon user I've heard that doesn't like this lens. But, you've got your valid reasons so I can understand that. For me, I love it. It's the one lens I find myself starting the day off with and ending the day with.

Whatever you decide, good luck in your decision!

[Suburbanmom]

Ann, you know I love mine. My kids call it, "mom's other baby".
But if you are not digging it, and you think the money it's worth could help somewhere else, I think you have a valid reason to sell it. You are terrific photographer and have a very cool style. Just because you don't love the lens everyone else does, doesn't mean a thing. Be true to yourself. :)

[mom2rtk]

As I recall, you got a pretty decent deal on it, so I'm sure you can get your money back on it, and you can always find another deal if you regret that decision later.

I personally love having a zoom. With 3 kids, my mind is always on something OTHER than swapping to the right prime.

It's funny you mention that 70 being a little tight for your taste though. I went back and forth just recently on getting a 2.8 zoom telephoto. After thinking it to death, I ended up getting the Sigma 50-150 f2.8. After taking it to yet another track meet yesterday, I decided I had made just the right choice. I find the 50 end just slightly tight for some situations, but not bad at all. I even had the thought "I'm sure glad I didn't go with the 70-200."

I'm sure I'll wish I had that 200 end when my other son graduates high school next year in a huge auditorium, but for now this one is perfect.

[Chikabowa]

If you decide to sell, let me know, I'm looking to pick up another copy of this lens.

[WDWFigment]

I think you should sell it--to me. As best I can tell, market value for this lens is currently hovering around $250. However, I'm a good sport and am willing to pay $350.

In all seriousness, if you have any credit card debt and you even have slight misgivings about the lens, I would sell it. You're better off paying that debt and buying the lens again later from a financial perspective.

[NLD]

I think you should sell it--to me. As best I can tell, market value for this lens is currently hovering around $250. However, I'm a good sport and am willing to pay $350.

In all seriousness, if you have any credit card debt and you even have slight misgivings about the lens, I would sell it. You're better off paying that debt and buying the lens again later from a financial perspective.

I'll top that offer and give you $500!

Really though, no, you're not crazy to sell it if you're not using it and have other bills.

[Icemann]

Looks you might have a bidding war on your hands for this lens.I'll go 550.If you are not going to use It and you want to pay your debt down which is a smart thing to do sell it.

[Master Mason]

That's one of the reasons I always suggest to people to decide what pictures they want to take, that they can't, and then get a lens that will allow them to. You can have the best lens in the world, but if you don't use it because it doesn't fit your shooting style or needs, then it pretty much worthless to you.

[spinetnglr]

Ann .. If you feel you will never get your money's worth out of the lens I wouldn't hang on to it either. If my part time photo job would have started earlier and I had the money already set aside I'd take it off your hands. And if I bought it from you .. you wouldnt have to pack it for shipping, I could just meet you in Philly for a day of shooting first :) Good luck with which ever decision you make!!

[Gdad]

I don't keep anything that collects dust for very long. If you don't use it or don't like using it then get rid of it and get something you like.

So that's a +1 for selling it- uh- and a -1 for using the cash to pay bills. (Sorry bills.... :rolleyes1)

[Bstanley]

OK, so my bonuses are not as large as some :-)

But rumbling it's way from New York City to me is my first 'serious' lens - a Canon 70-200L (the non-IS version).

I've got a big vacation to a far distant land coming up and I've been eyeing the 70-200 lenses for some time. I decided against the 2.8 version this time because it weighs more than I wanted and I just couldn't convince myself to part with the cash - if the F4 turns out to be a too much of a limit I can upgrade later.

Well today Adorama had a $45 instant rebate on the non-IS version and that pushed me over the edge. I am SO going to be taking pictures this weekend!

[mabas9395]

Congrats. The only down-side is that you have now raised the bar on the quality you'll expect from your lenses. I never realized how bad some of my lenses were until I got the 70-200 L.

[Frantasmic]

exactly. you will be spoiled with the quality and only want l lenses from now on

[Bstanley]

I never realized how bad some of my lenses were until I got the 70-200 L

I hear you.

That is actually my clever plan m'Lord. I'm looking forward to buying a Canon 5D MK II body in a couple of years and I want the glass in place to support it.

In the meantime all I need to do is learn how to take photographs instead of snapping pictures :rolleyes1

Should be able to handle that in a couple of years - right?

[jeffb]

Enjoy the new glass - the 70-200 is a beautiful lens!

[edolyne]

Great choice in lens. The L glass is amazing and from what I understand the f/4 is sharper at f/4 than the f/2.8 is at f/4.

[MarkBarbieri]

Congrats. The 70-200 f/4 is a great lens. My first "expensive" lens was a 70-200. I bought it six years and it is still my most used and favorite lens today.

Always use your hood with it. I won't weigh in on whether you should use a UV filter (that's a personal/religious choice), but you should definitely use your hood.

If I recall, the f/4 is light enough not to need a tripod collar and it doesn't come with one. You might consider getting one if you find yourself doing a lot of tripod shooting and frequently switching from portrait to landscape. With the collar, you just loosen it and you can rotate the camera to any orientation you want. If you do get one and your tripod takes arca-swiss plates, order a plate for the tripod collar. I suggest that you get one that has another tripod mounting screw hole built into the plate. That way, if you ever go the Black Rapid strap route, you can attach it to the lens without taking off the plate. I learned that the hard way.

I think it has a focus range limiter switch. That can be useful when you are shooting birds, planes, or other stuff in the sky. In those cases, without the range limiter, if you loose tracking on your subject, the lens has to try the entire focus range (which can take an unbearably long time). With the limiter, it has less range to hunt through. I leave my limiter off except for those cases when I'm tracking a subject against a featureless background.

I think the f/4 has a pretty small filter diameter. It's something like a 68mm. I recommend that you don't buy filters that size. Instead, get a step-up ring and buy either 72mm or 77mm filters. They will perform the same on your lens, but you'll be able to use them on future lenses. The 77mm seems to be the standard on a lot of canon zooms (17-40, 70-200 f/2.8, 24-70, 24-105). The 72mm is used on some primes (85 f/1.2, 135 f/2). It's much cheaper to buy one larger polarizer and step-up filters rather than different polarizers for each lens size.

[Bstanley]

Always use your hood with it.

Ok. I like hoods in any case (bought one for the kit lense for example), but this lens certainly deserves as much 'cover' as possible.

If I recall, the f/4 is light enough not to need a tripod collar and it doesn't come with one. You might consider getting one

With the Rebel XS body at 1 Lb and the lens at 1 1/2 Lb I'm hoping that I can do a lot of shooting freehand with the setup. However in preparation for the trip, where I expect to do an interesting amount of shooting off a tripod, it seemed like a lens collar made a lot of sense for balance reasons (hanging 1 1/2 Lbs off the front of a 1 Lb camera) so I did buy one. I also bought a new tripod and ball head.

Thanks for the other advice - moving from pure amateur to the next level I can use all the help I can get.

[bob100]

I think the f/4 has a pretty small filter diameter. It's something like a 68mm. I recommend that you don't buy filters that size. Instead, get a step-up ring and buy either 72mm or 77mm filters. They will perform the same on your lens, but you'll be able to use them on future lenses. The 77mm seems to be the standard on a lot of canon zooms (17-40, 70-200 f/2.8, 24-70, 24-105). The 72mm is used on some primes (85 f/1.2, 135 f/2). It's much cheaper to buy one larger polarizer and step-up filters rather than different polarizers for each lens size.

sounds like a good suggestion, it gets expensive buying filters for all the different size lens!

[Bstanley]

I am now officially spoiled. It was a nice day so I thought I would take a trip across the bay and see if I could spot any 'oil protection' activity. I ended up taking a bunch of pictures - mostly birds and boats. The new lens is great to work with - very fast and certain with it's focus, even as I tracked things and really well balanced with a Rebel XS hanging off the back of it.

With the lens collar on and a ball-head quick-connect attached to the collar it makes a great little hand hold - and my fingers naturally wrap around the zoom ring. Very nice ergonomics for me.

With the lens hood attached this thing looks absurd, but it really does take very crisp pictures. I forgot I had an extra 1/3 EV dialed in on the camera and since I haven't tweaked the following picture at all - except to crop a bit, they are a bit overamped, but that is not the fault of the lens.

The second of the flower pictures is a 100% crop.

Hard to swallow for us amateurs, but spending more money on the lens than on the body really paid off in this case...oh - I also joined SmugMug so if you are inclined to see the pics full size - here's My brand new Smug Mug Gallery. (http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Canon-70-200-F4L/Mobile-Bay/12181847_DeBYn#866954332_8wWEM)

http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Canon-70-200-F4L/Mobile-Bay/CG-Aircraft/866954332_8wWEM-L.jpg

http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Canon-70-200-F4L/Mobile-Bay/Pelican/866954292_HUWAG-L.jpg

http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Canon-70-200-F4L/Mobile-Bay/Flowers/866954179_bexYJ-L.jpg

http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Canon-70-200-F4L/Mobile-Bay/100-crop-Flowers/866954248_XqkAk-L.jpg

http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Canon-70-200-F4L/Mobile-Bay/Tugboat/866954097_G9Ahh-L.jpg

[Bstanley]

So here are a few that I've made a first pass at editing.

http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Canon-70-200-F4L/Mobile-Bay/Pelican-Rig/867202822_Apgae-L.jpg

http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Canon-70-200-F4L/Mobile-Bay/seagull/867202729_RWBk3-L.jpg

http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Canon-70-200-F4L/Mobile-Bay/pelicans-light/867202673_byUim-L.jpg

http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Canon-70-200-F4L/Mobile-Bay/Pelican-Boom/867202582_MsNyi-L.jpg

[disneyboy2003]

Your photos are really nice and sharp! Congratulations on your brand new lens! Hope you give it a really good work-out! :)

[Bstanley]

So yesterday was a rainy day - late in the afternoon though I was able to take some pictures with a bit more color in them than those from the previous day when the rain let up for few moments.

"Watch the Birdie"

http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Animals/Backyard-Rain/Birdie/869882876_jZ2R3-L.jpg

There's a Ladybug hidden in the following picture...although it's much easier to see on the full size version on Smugmug (http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Animals/Backyard-Rain/12214174_XruqU#869882976_gHzJq).

http://rebelxs.smugmug.com/Animals/Backyard-Rain/ladybug2/869882976_gHzJq-L.jpg