Lens Advice for Canon 70D

[havoc315]

Indeed.

I actually want an f4 to complement mine, just for the weight savings. As a matter of fact, after beginning to use my 6D FF 70% of the time, I've a good mind to just sell the 2.8 and buy an f4 altogether, but I'm not quite there yet.

I think it's really all about whether you really *need* the 2.8. If you shoot indoor sports often, then the F4 is not a true substitute.
If you are shooting portraits and want the narrow DOF.. some will tell you that you need the 2.8, but I've seen professional portrait photographers stick with the F4, or the F4 and a couple primes. The slight difference in DOF when shooting telephoto isn't necessarily worth the extra bulk of the 2.8.

I'm shooting Nikon.. For the same price, I could have gotten the 70-200/4 from Nikon, or a 3rd party 70-200/2.8 (the Tamron is supposedly pretty good). But I chose the F4 for the weight difference. I can't realistically see myself carrying the 2.8 often.

 

[SkaGoat]

I think it's really all about whether you really *need* the 2.8. If you shoot indoor sports often, then the F4 is not a true substitute.
If you are shooting portraits and want the narrow DOF.. some will tell you that you need the 2.8, but I've seen professional portrait photographers stick with the F4, or the F4 and a couple primes. The slight difference in DOF when shooting telephoto isn't necessarily worth the extra bulk of the 2.8.

I'm shooting Nikon.. For the same price, I could have gotten the 70-200/4 from Nikon, or a 3rd party 70-200/2.8 (the Tamron is supposedly pretty good). But I chose the F4 for the weight difference. I can't realistically see myself carrying the 2.8 often.

I guess it all depends on what you want, I felt the non-IS Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L to be completely manageable, and the IS version is under half a pound heavier.

 

[bob100]

2.8 is ii

nice

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Nice choice! I doubt that you will be disappointed. Is it heavier than a pancake lens? Of course, however if you need that lens capability, then it's a no-brainer. For some it may be too heavy but for me it doesn't make a difference because it's what I need. Besides it's not the heaviest lens in my repertoire!

 

[havoc315]

I guess it all depends on what you want, I felt the non-IS Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L to be completely manageable, and the IS version is under half a pound heavier.

I think we all have our own weight threshold. I see some people describing 3 pound lenses as still being "light" and easy to use. Then I see people complaining of the bulk of an ordinary APS-C dSLR with kit lens.

For me, it's a question of what I'm comfortable carrying for several hours. I shoot with a full frame dSLR and 70-200 F4 largely. The camera + lens combination comes in just a bit under 4 lbs. That's already pushing my threshold for long term use. After an hour, my neck/shoulder could be starting to feel it and I might want to put down the camera for a few minutes. 4 lbs certainly isn't that much, but over a long term period, I definitely feel it. Upgrading to the 70-200/2.8 would add another pound and a half... instead of being just under 4 lbs, I'd be just over 5 lbs.

Technically, an average "brick" weighs 4 1/2 - 5 pounds.

So carrying around the camera body plus 70-200/2.8 for a long term period, is a bit heavier than carrying around a brick all day. Right now, I'm just a bit below that threshold. For other people, I've seen people say that something like the RX100 is too big and heavy to carry all day. (A whole half pound! Much heavier than something like a Canon Elph).