«

>Don Dunlap writes ...
>
> I want to get my first "L" lens and am seriously considering the f/2.8 L
> 70-200 from Canon ... The lens weighs about 3.5 lb.. I believe
> and am wondering how unwieldy this is on an extended shoot ...
> How do current owners of this lens feel about the handling ... I
> have considered the 4.0 and I agree with you that it might be
> the best for what I do.

My wife has the 70-200 f/4 L and I sometimes get to use it, I used to
use the non-IS f/2.8 version and recently bought the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
so have used all three ... I think the f/4 optics are pretty close to
those of the f/2.8 and if you're on the fence about weight I'd say get
the f/4 since it's about half the weight, it's also several hundred $$
cheaper ... sometimes I borrow my wife's f/4 when I don't have much
room in the bag and have to choose between the f/2.8 and bringing a 300
f/4 or 400 f/5.6, typically when flying somewhere.

The biggest advantages of the f/2.8 L IS are 1) the extra f/stop,
which means it will autofocus faster (and on rare occasions I've had
f/2.8 lenses AF when f/4 lenses would not) ... also you get a bit more
background blur if shooting wide open ... and 2) the IS feature, which
is very useful when handholding or when shooting slow shutter speed
pans in mode 2. The biggest disadvantages of course are the weight and
cost.

>I have a 20D and take photos mainly of my wife's
>orchids, my dog and scenic vistas

For this I would definitely get the f/4

Bill

"Jørn Dahl-Stamnes" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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/

Nice shots! I wonder how much the IS helped on these? I don't know that
much about the details of IS, but at 1/1000, does it even come in to play?

I am now leaning more toward the f4, but I have some unexpected cash, so I
am still trying to decide.

Don

"C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
news:C04021B8.57017%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com. ..
> On 3/17/06 4:44 AM, in article , "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
>>
>>
> 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
>

Right now I have a bag, but don't like it. I am also thinking about a back
pack and will probably ask for some recommendations there.

Don

"Mardon" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9789808307579mgb72mgbhotmailcom@140.99.99. 130...
> "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...
>> 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.
>

Very nice photos. It would be nice to be able to display the exif, or did I
miss something?

Don

I totally agree with what 'Mardon' said.

I also agree with what Bill Hilton said, although I would still go for the
2.8IS, as you generally keep lenses for a long time. If you bought an F4,
you will always be wanting the 2.8IS, especially when you find yourself in a
low light condition. With the 1.4 converter, it turns the F4 into a F5.6,
so pretty slow. Of course, it depends on your financial situation.

If you are worried about the weight and hand holding it, check out this
dude. Now this would be a concern! )

http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=rlavyd







"Mardon" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9789808307579mgb72mgbhotmailcom@140.99.99. 130...
> "Don Dunlap" <> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

Derek Fountain 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 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.

The lens is excellent, but it doesn't carry itself. I am big and have
been strong, but I must actually start an early conditioning program
if I expect to carry and use it for more than a few hours.

It does as good a job as a photographer can expect; it imposes some
conditions that may not be tolerable to some. There have been a couple
of quivering-arm moments when I wished I had the 4.0. But more when
the 2.8 IS choice was affirmed.

[OT]: Meaning no offense: how does someone determine that "most
people" (half of all people, plus one or more, right?) "tend" to
anything? I know it's hyperbole, rhetoric, or some such, but it seems
to me it's pretty careless in what is touted as a "technical group".
</grump>

--
Frank ess
"You know my method, Watson.
It is founded upon
the observation of trifles."
-Sherlock Holmes-

"Don Dunlap" <> wrote in message
news:...
>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?
>

For the pictures you currently take and the weight consideration then you
may consider the 24 to 105mm f4L IS as your first L lens.

I have a 70-200mm f2.8L non IS and it's very very good, but I wouldn't use
it on a 20D for dog pictures - unless the dog is quite far away. Those
captive orchids don't need a 200mm lens. Many people have suggested you save
lots of money and look at the 70-200mm f4L, this is a useful suggestion.

Scenic vistas generally need a wide angle - 24mm is not very wide on a 20D.
I have the 16-35mm f2.8L and it does a very good job on vistas. IS is not
normally needed for vistas.

So, L lenses? For the price of the 70-200mm f2.8L IS you can probably buy
the 17-40mm f4L, the 24-105mm f4L IS and have a bit of change to go towards
a 70-200mm f4L.

John

"Don Dunlap" <> wrote in message
news:...
>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
>
>
Get a monopod. I use this lens to shoot portraits, and it really isn't that
bad for an hour or so, but a monopod will help.
I can't really say if it should be your first "L" lens, since I don't know
what other lenses you have. A 24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f4 IS may be a better
choice, if you don't have those ranges covered adequately.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Eatmorepies" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Don Dunlap" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>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?
>>
>
> For the pictures you currently take and the weight consideration then you
> may consider the 24 to 105mm f4L IS as your first L lens.
>
> I have a 70-200mm f2.8L non IS and it's very very good, but I wouldn't use
> it on a 20D for dog pictures - unless the dog is quite far away. Those
> captive orchids don't need a 200mm lens. Many people have suggested you
> save lots of money and look at the 70-200mm f4L, this is a useful
> suggestion.
>
> Scenic vistas generally need a wide angle - 24mm is not very wide on a
> 20D. I have the 16-35mm f2.8L and it does a very good job on vistas. IS is
> not normally needed for vistas.
>
> So, L lenses? For the price of the 70-200mm f2.8L IS you can probably buy
> the 17-40mm f4L, the 24-105mm f4L IS and have a bit of change to go
> towards a 70-200mm f4L.
>
> John
>

Food for thought. I had not considered those lenses but I'll look into it.
I usually try to get a narrow DOF for the orchids, and I was concentrating
on a 2.8 a little too much maybe.

Don

On 2006-03-17, Eatmorepies <> wrote:

> I have a 70-200mm f2.8L non IS and it's very very good, but I wouldn't use
> it on a 20D for dog pictures - unless the dog is quite far away.

Here is some example of photos what has taken with 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_28is

And I think that dog doesn't need to be so far away... especially if he
is taking photos about playing dog or something like that...

--
Petri Lopia :: lid
Firework, Lightning, sun, moon, nature etc. photos
http://www.petrilopia.net/