Love & Lau
Is there really MUCH difference between these four?
70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
70-200mm f2.8L USM
70-200mm f4L IS USM
70-200mm f4L USM
I mostly do outdoor portraits of children, family etc, and low key events like anniversary dinners, baptisms, birthdays..... Im looking to buy a GREAT portrait lens but not to spend a fortune!!! I cant decide on the 85mm 1.2 or 85mm 1.8 either.... which one should I buy??
There is also a 70-200mm 2.8L II IS USM ($2,388).... what's the difference from the other one- 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM ($1,800) except for the price.
Answer
WHAT?! the 28-200mm versus these excellent lenses?! these lenses are 567384563945 centillion times better than the extremly-soft-at-all-focal-lengths 28-200mm. there is quite a difference.
the f/2.8l series is different, and may be too much for you. they are 3 times heavier, and i think it might be overkill for just children, family stuff, but if you want to spend the $1.6K, it is worth it. you may want to rent it, because while 3lbs might sound light to you, if you spend 3 hours with it photographing running children and taking pictures of candles on a cake with a smiling kid in the background, it will be HEAVY. the newer II IS version, which is even more overkill to you maybe, is sharp at all apertures, including f/2.8, (which the original, was soft at a little).
ok if you don't want to read an essay, READ THIS PART:
i recommend the 70-200mm f/4l is usm, because its light (compared to its bigger brother and sister, the f/2.8l series), you do outdoor stuff (which you really don't need f/2.8 for), it has fast AF performance (better than the DC motor of the 70-300mm), and its very sharp. if you have no budget and lost your mind slightly, then spend it all on the f/2.8L IS USM II. but budget wise, and commonsense wise, the 70-200mm f/4l is usm is for you. plus, its weather sealed, unlike the non IS counterparts, so you can take some good pictures on a rainy little league baseball game.
the 85mm is a different story, and if you must, then buy the 85mm f/1.8, because its boatloads cheaper, lighter, and sharper
WHAT?! the 28-200mm versus these excellent lenses?! these lenses are 567384563945 centillion times better than the extremly-soft-at-all-focal-lengths 28-200mm. there is quite a difference.
the f/2.8l series is different, and may be too much for you. they are 3 times heavier, and i think it might be overkill for just children, family stuff, but if you want to spend the $1.6K, it is worth it. you may want to rent it, because while 3lbs might sound light to you, if you spend 3 hours with it photographing running children and taking pictures of candles on a cake with a smiling kid in the background, it will be HEAVY. the newer II IS version, which is even more overkill to you maybe, is sharp at all apertures, including f/2.8, (which the original, was soft at a little).
ok if you don't want to read an essay, READ THIS PART:
i recommend the 70-200mm f/4l is usm, because its light (compared to its bigger brother and sister, the f/2.8l series), you do outdoor stuff (which you really don't need f/2.8 for), it has fast AF performance (better than the DC motor of the 70-300mm), and its very sharp. if you have no budget and lost your mind slightly, then spend it all on the f/2.8L IS USM II. but budget wise, and commonsense wise, the 70-200mm f/4l is usm is for you. plus, its weather sealed, unlike the non IS counterparts, so you can take some good pictures on a rainy little league baseball game.
the 85mm is a different story, and if you must, then buy the 85mm f/1.8, because its boatloads cheaper, lighter, and sharper
Canon 70-200mm f/4 lens.....Macro and water droplets?
humaxing
I am planning on getting this lens soon, but i'm wondering is this lens good in terms of Macro photography...i know that this lens does not have the macro mode, but most lenses dont have macro mode but turn out to have great results when shooting flowers.
Another thing...is this lens good also in terms of water droplet photography?
Any personal experiences and suggestions would be good....
thanx;)
Answer
Any prime will beat any zoom for image quality. Any manufacturers 50mm and 100mm Macro lenses are usually the sharpest lens they make. A 100mm will put you further away from the subject which is handy as you can get in your own light with a 50mm.
The 70 - 200mm is probably a more useful lens, but for macro a dedicated macro lens will blow your socks off for image quality. How close will the 70 - 200mm focus? Probably not close enough for water droplets.
Most any lens, even a kit lens, will do water droplets, a dedicated macro will just do it better.
Chris
Any prime will beat any zoom for image quality. Any manufacturers 50mm and 100mm Macro lenses are usually the sharpest lens they make. A 100mm will put you further away from the subject which is handy as you can get in your own light with a 50mm.
The 70 - 200mm is probably a more useful lens, but for macro a dedicated macro lens will blow your socks off for image quality. How close will the 70 - 200mm focus? Probably not close enough for water droplets.
Most any lens, even a kit lens, will do water droplets, a dedicated macro will just do it better.
Chris
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment