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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Don Dunlap, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    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
    Don Dunlap, Mar 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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.
    Derek Fountain, Mar 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Don Dunlap

    Petri Lopia Guest

    On 2006-03-17, 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 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 :: lid
    Firework, Lightning, sun, moon, nature etc. photos
    http://www.petrilopia.net/
    Petri Lopia, Mar 17, 2006
    #3
  4. Don Dunlap

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    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
    Neil Ellwood, Mar 17, 2006
    #4
  5. 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/show.php?album=Volleyball_05

    I have used a 1.4x converter on some of the pictures.
    --
    Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
    http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Dahl-Stamnes, Mar 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "Derek Fountain" <> wrote in message
    news:441a9f3d$0$76731$...
    > 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
    Don Dunlap, Mar 17, 2006
    #6
  7. Don Dunlap

    C Wright Guest

    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
    C Wright, Mar 17, 2006
    #7
  8. 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/show.php?album=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
    John McWilliams, Mar 17, 2006
    #8
  9. 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/show.php?album=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/
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Dahl-Stamnes, Mar 17, 2006
    #9
  10. Don Dunlap

    Mardon Guest

    "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.
    Mardon, Mar 17, 2006
    #10
  11. Don Dunlap

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >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
    Bill Hilton, Mar 17, 2006
    #11
  12. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "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/show.php?album=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
    Don Dunlap, Mar 17, 2006
    #12
  13. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "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
    Don Dunlap, Mar 17, 2006
    #13
  14. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "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
    Don Dunlap, Mar 17, 2006
    #14
  15. Don Dunlap

    Colin Guest

    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.
    >
    Colin, Mar 17, 2006
    #15
  16. Don Dunlap

    Frank ess Guest

    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-
    Frank ess, Mar 17, 2006
    #16
  17. Don Dunlap

    Eatmorepies Guest

    "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
    Eatmorepies, Mar 17, 2006
    #17
  18. Don Dunlap

    Skip M Guest

    "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
    Skip M, Mar 17, 2006
    #18
  19. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "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
    Don Dunlap, Mar 17, 2006
    #19
  20. Don Dunlap

    Petri Lopia Guest

    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/
    Petri Lopia, Mar 17, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jerry

    Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

    Jerry, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    368
    incabloc
    Sep 7, 2003
  2. Rod Bruno

    FS : Canon 70-200mm 2.8 USM / Canon 2.X II Autofocus

    Rod Bruno, Feb 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    442
  3. John A. Stovall

    Canon EF 70-200mm F4.0L USM SLR Lens preformance on the 20D?

    John A. Stovall, Feb 9, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    336
    Bill Hilton
    Feb 9, 2005
  4. Canon 200mm f2.8/L vs. 70-200mm f/4L

    , Sep 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    348
    JohnR66
    Sep 22, 2005
  5. DHB

    New EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens + C-PL?

    DHB, Nov 3, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    417
Loading...

Share This Page