Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Canon 70-200mm f/2L.8 IS USM Lens (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t423394-canon-70-200mm-f-2l-8-is-usm-lens.html)

Don Dunlap 03-17-2006 10:44 AM

Canon 70-200mm f/2L.8 IS USM Lens
 
I want to get my first "L" lens and am seriously considering the subject
70-200 from Canon. I have a 20D and take photos mainly of my wife's
orchids, my dog and scenic vistas. The lens weighs about 3.5 lb.. I believe
and am wondering how unwieldy this is on an extended shoot. The 20D with
the Battery Grip is pretty heave already and I don't know how steady I could
hold the Camera with this heavy lens after 100 or so shots. Without the
Battery Grip it would still be pretty heavy.

I could use a tripod for many of the orchid shots and for most of the scenic
shots, but action shots of my dog would require holding it at ready for
extended periods. How do current owners of this lens feel about the
handling and would this be a good choice for my first "L" lens?

Don Dunlap



Derek Fountain 03-17-2006 11:35 AM

Re: Canon 70-200mm f/2L.8 IS USM Lens
 
Don Dunlap wrote:
> I want to get my first "L" lens and am seriously considering the subject
> 70-200 from Canon. I have a 20D and take photos mainly of my wife's
> orchids, my dog and scenic vistas. The lens weighs about 3.5 lb.. I believe
> and am wondering how unwieldy this is on an extended shoot. The 20D with
> the Battery Grip is pretty heave already and I don't know how steady I could
> hold the Camera with this heavy lens after 100 or so shots. Without the
> Battery Grip it would still be pretty heavy.
>
> I could use a tripod for many of the orchid shots and for most of the scenic
> shots, but action shots of my dog would require holding it at ready for
> extended periods. How do current owners of this lens feel about the
> handling and would this be a good choice for my first "L" lens?


I considered that lens, and the more I looked into the issue, the more I
concluded that it's a rather specialised lens. 3.5lb is 1.5kg (for those
of us in the modern world ;op), and that's a lot to lug around and hold
for hundreds of shots. It's ironic that the size and weight of a f2.8
lens with image stabilisation would have someone considering whether he
should use it with a tripod.

Most people tend to go for the f/4.0 version, which is equally as good
quality-wise, nearly a kilo lighter and about half the price. You have
to decide if the IS and extra stops are worth the tradeoffs of expense
and bulk. Those without a particular need, myself included, figured they
are not. I got the f/4.0 and it's an absolute gem.

Petri Lopia 03-17-2006 11:37 AM

Re: Canon 70-200mm f/2L.8 IS USM Lens
 
On 2006-03-17, Don Dunlap <nospam@spam.com> wrote:
> I want to get my first "L" lens and am seriously considering the subject
> 70-200 from Canon. I have a 20D and take photos mainly of my wife's
> orchids, my dog and scenic vistas. The lens weighs about 3.5 lb.. I believe
> and am wondering how unwieldy this is on an extended shoot. The 20D with
> the Battery Grip is pretty heave already and I don't know how steady I could
> hold the Camera with this heavy lens after 100 or so shots. Without the
> Battery Grip it would still be pretty heavy.
>
> I could use a tripod for many of the orchid shots and for most of the scenic
> shots, but action shots of my dog would require holding it at ready for
> extended periods. How do current owners of this lens feel about the
> handling and would this be a good choice for my first "L" lens?


I have 70-200 IS USM and it's pretty good lens. I don't use it much cos I bought
100-400 lens but if you take photos about your wife's orchids etc. then it
should be ok... or have you thought macro lens? No idea what kind of photos
you take those orhids but for dog it's IMHO perfect =)

First it feels heavy but after you have used it couple of times you start to
used to it and it doesn't feel so heavy anymore =)

--
Petri Lopia :: petri.REMOVElopia@iki.fi.invalid
Firework, Lightning, sun, moon, nature etc. photos
http://www.petrilopia.net/

Neil Ellwood 03-17-2006 12:54 PM

Re: Canon 70-200mm f/2L.8 IS USM Lens
 
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:44:18 -0500, Don Dunlap wrote:

> I want to get my first "L" lens and am seriously considering the subject
> 70-200 from Canon. I have a 20D and take photos mainly of my wife's
> orchids, my dog and scenic vistas. The lens weighs about 3.5 lb.. I believe
> and am wondering how unwieldy this is on an extended shoot. The 20D with
> the Battery Grip is pretty heave already and I don't know how steady I could
> hold the Camera with this heavy lens after 100 or so shots. Without the
> Battery Grip it would still be pretty heavy.
>
> I could use a tripod for many of the orchid shots and for most of the scenic
> shots, but action shots of my dog would require holding it at ready for
> extended periods. How do current owners of this lens feel about the
> handling and would this be a good choice for my first "L" lens?
>
> Don Dunlap

Now let me first say that I don't have that lens or camera. With a lens as
heavy as that I would hold the lens to take the weight rather than the
camera, the weight should help you to hold the camera steadier than with a
light weight lens. As to whether it would be a good choice for your first
'L' lens the only person who could pass an opinion on that would be you as
it all depends on your interests, methods and needs.

p.s. If I take the weight of a lens by holding the lens then I seem to
always shoot in manual.

--
Neil
Delete 'l' to reply by email

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Dahl-Stamnes 03-17-2006 01:55 PM

Re: Canon 70-200mm f/2L.8 IS USM Lens
 
Don Dunlap wrote:

> I want to get my first "L" lens and am seriously considering the subject
> 70-200 from Canon. I have a 20D and take photos mainly of my wife's
> orchids, my dog and scenic vistas. The lens weighs about 3.5 lb.. I
> believe
> and am wondering how unwieldy this is on an extended shoot. The 20D with
> the Battery Grip is pretty heave already and I don't know how steady I
> could
> hold the Camera with this heavy lens after 100 or so shots. Without the
> Battery Grip it would still be pretty heavy.
>
> I could use a tripod for many of the orchid shots and for most of the
> scenic shots, but action shots of my dog would require holding it at ready
> for
> extended periods. How do current owners of this lens feel about the
> handling and would this be a good choice for my first "L" lens?


I got this lens (the 2.8 L IS) and I use it primary when shooting sports
activities and birds (that is not too afraid of humans). I do not have much
problems with holding it after 100-200-300 shots, even if I got problems
with my arms.

Here are some shots taken with the lens:

http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/sho...=Volleyball_05

I have used a 1.4x converter on some of the pictures.
--
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/

Don Dunlap 03-17-2006 01:57 PM

Re: Canon 70-200mm f/2L.8 IS USM Lens
 

"Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:441a9f3d$0$76731$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net...
> Don Dunlap wrote:
>> I want to get my first "L" lens and am seriously considering the subject
>> 70-200 from Canon. I have a 20D and take photos mainly of my wife's
>> orchids, my dog and scenic vistas. The lens weighs about 3.5 lb.. I
>> believe and am wondering how unwieldy this is on an extended shoot. The
>> 20D with the Battery Grip is pretty heave already and I don't know how
>> steady I could hold the Camera with this heavy lens after 100 or so
>> shots. Without the Battery Grip it would still be pretty heavy.
>>
>> I could use a tripod for many of the orchid shots and for most of the
>> scenic shots, but action shots of my dog would require holding it at
>> ready for extended periods. How do current owners of this lens feel
>> about the handling and would this be a good choice for my first "L" lens?

>
> I considered that lens, and the more I looked into the issue, the more I
> concluded that it's a rather specialised lens. 3.5lb is 1.5kg (for those
> of us in the modern world ;op), and that's a lot to lug around and hold
> for hundreds of shots. It's ironic that the size and weight of a f2.8 lens
> with image stabilisation would have someone considering whether he should
> use it with a tripod.
>
> Most people tend to go for the f/4.0 version, which is equally as good
> quality-wise, nearly a kilo lighter and about half the price. You have to
> decide if the IS and extra stops are worth the tradeoffs of expense and
> bulk. Those without a particular need, myself included, figured they are
> not. I got the f/4.0 and it's an absolute gem.


I have considered the 4.0 and I agree with you that it might be the best for
what I do. I have one IS lens, the 28-135, and I don't think that it is
that valuable to me for what I do. Saving the $500 or so is also something
to keep in mind. Thanks for the comments.

Don



C Wright 03-17-2006 02:20 PM

Re: Canon 70-200mm f/2L.8 IS USM Lens
 
On 3/17/06 4:44 AM, in article 121l4o2rf1pshae@corp.supernews.com, "Don
Dunlap" <nospam@spam.com> wrote:

> I want to get my first "L" lens and am seriously considering the subject
> 70-200 from Canon. I have a 20D and take photos mainly of my wife's
> orchids, my dog and scenic vistas. The lens weighs about 3.5 lb.. I believe
> and am wondering how unwieldy this is on an extended shoot. The 20D with
> the Battery Grip is pretty heave already and I don't know how steady I could
> hold the Camera with this heavy lens after 100 or so shots. Without the
> Battery Grip it would still be pretty heavy.
>
> I could use a tripod for many of the orchid shots and for most of the scenic
> shots, but action shots of my dog would require holding it at ready for
> extended periods. How do current owners of this lens feel about the
> handling and would this be a good choice for my first "L" lens?
>
> Don Dunlap
>
>

I have that lens and it is an amazing lens. It is very sharp throughout the
zoom range and the IS absolutely works. I don't know how long an extended
shoot is for you, I often use that lens (sometimes with a 1.4x extender) for
a couple of hours of hand held shooting. But, I would not want to carry it
all day, not without a back pack or other means of getting the weight off my
arms.
Chuck


John McWilliams 03-17-2006 03:32 PM

Re: Canon 70-200mm f/2L.8 IS USM Lens
 
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes wrote:
> Don Dunlap wrote:
>
>
>>I want to get my first "L" lens and am seriously considering the subject
>>70-200 from Canon. I have a 20D and take photos mainly of my wife's
>>orchids, my dog and scenic vistas. The lens weighs about 3.5 lb.. I
>>believe
>>and am wondering how unwieldy this is on an extended shoot. The 20D with
>>the Battery Grip is pretty heave already and I don't know how steady I
>>could
>>hold the Camera with this heavy lens after 100 or so shots. Without the
>>Battery Grip it would still be pretty heavy.
>>
>>I could use a tripod for many of the orchid shots and for most of the
>>scenic shots, but action shots of my dog would require holding it at ready
>>for
>>extended periods. How do current owners of this lens feel about the
>>handling and would this be a good choice for my first "L" lens?

>
>
> I got this lens (the 2.8 L IS) and I use it primary when shooting sports
> activities and birds (that is not too afraid of humans). I do not have much
> problems with holding it after 100-200-300 shots, even if I got problems
> with my arms.
>
> Here are some shots taken with the lens:
>
> http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/sho...=Volleyball_05
>
> I have used a 1.4x converter on some of the pictures.


Nice shots! But you might like to try a few wide open to soften the bg,
esp houses. .....

I ain't as stong as Jorn; I use a monopod whenever I have to stand at an
event. Also use the 1.4 esp outdoors. A fabulous lens.

--
John McWilliams

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Dahl-Stamnes 03-17-2006 03:45 PM

Re: Canon 70-200mm f/2L.8 IS USM Lens
 
John McWilliams wrote:

> Jørn Dahl-Stamnes wrote:
>> Don Dunlap wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I want to get my first "L" lens and am seriously considering the subject
>>>70-200 from Canon. I have a 20D and take photos mainly of my wife's
>>>orchids, my dog and scenic vistas. The lens weighs about 3.5 lb.. I
>>>believe
>>>and am wondering how unwieldy this is on an extended shoot. The 20D with
>>>the Battery Grip is pretty heave already and I don't know how steady I
>>>could
>>>hold the Camera with this heavy lens after 100 or so shots. Without the
>>>Battery Grip it would still be pretty heavy.
>>>
>>>I could use a tripod for many of the orchid shots and for most of the
>>>scenic shots, but action shots of my dog would require holding it at
>>>ready for
>>>extended periods. How do current owners of this lens feel about the
>>>handling and would this be a good choice for my first "L" lens?

>>
>>
>> I got this lens (the 2.8 L IS) and I use it primary when shooting sports
>> activities and birds (that is not too afraid of humans). I do not have
>> much problems with holding it after 100-200-300 shots, even if I got
>> problems with my arms.
>>
>> Here are some shots taken with the lens:
>>
>> http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/sho...=Volleyball_05
>>
>> I have used a 1.4x converter on some of the pictures.

>
> Nice shots! But you might like to try a few wide open to soften the bg,
> esp houses. .....


I know... but you know, the girls took my attention... ;-)

> I ain't as stong as Jorn; I use a monopod whenever I have to stand at an
> event. Also use the 1.4 esp outdoors. A fabulous lens.


I'm not strong at all... if I am, it's my legs, since I do a lot of cycling.
A monopod helps a lot and is more or less required when using the 500mm 4 L
IS USM
--
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/

Mardon 03-17-2006 04:08 PM

Re: Canon 70-200mm f/2L.8 IS USM Lens
 
"Don Dunlap" <nospam@spam.com> wrote:

> I want to get my first "L" lens and am seriously considering the
> subject 70-200 from Canon. I have a 20D and...
> Don Dunlap


I have a 20 D with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. I find the extra speed of
the f2.8 (versus the f4) to be very useful, both for DOF control and
for light gathering ability. When I use my f2.8 lens with my 1.4x
converter, the combination becomes an f/4. With a 1.4x on an f/4
lens, I don't think that the 20D will get enough light to auto focus
properly. The weight of this lens is not something I even notice
once I start using it. For me, that's a non-issue, other than I use
a backpack or sholder lens case if I'm walking a long distance
between shots. The size of the lens does make candid shots pretty
much impossible (because it is so noticable) but it can have a
positive effect on gaining access. People just assume you're a
'Pro'. I often take a monopod with me when using this lens. Even
though the lens has IS, the monopod is still very useful. I stongly
recommend it. I love this lens and I'm very glad that I got it
instead of the f/4. My other lenses are a Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
USM ultra-wide zoom, a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 prime, a Canon EF 180mm
f/3.5L Macro USM, and a Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. Photos taken with
these lenses are at:
http://www.JustPhotos.ca/

Follow the "Galleries" link for additional images, many taken with my
20D and the lens you are considering. The "Sports" Gallery has a
couple of hockey games that I covered recently. IMHO, it would have
been very difficult to get the same action shots with an f/4 and the
lighting at those two games.



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.