Canon 1Ds Mark-II + Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens

I can only say WOW!! Landed in Manila yesterday and went to this
Photoworld exhibition they have here. Canon's stall had the 1Ds Mark-II
on display. I asked the rep to show me the camera. He tried to get a
regular lens but found his colleague using it on the 1D. So he took out
the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 "L" IS lens from the showcase and put it on and
gave me the camera to play with

It was inside a mall in the night and the lighting was good but I was
expecting a shutter speed of less than 1/100 sec. My jaw dropped when I
saw the camera choose 1/500sec!!

I never thought I'd put a "L" lens on my wishlist coz I thought those
are only for pros who need all that sharpness and contrast.

Phew!! Wow!! What a lens and what a camera!!

 

Like a good drug dealer...

Your first mistake. Your second one was dispelling that illusion by
actually using one. Now you are on the Golden Treadmill of The Empty Bank
Account. ;-}

One obersvation - the Sigma version is easily the equal of the 70-200
EXCEPT for lacking the IS. It's served me very well indeed.

If you can live without the IS, you can pay roughly half as much for that
eye-popping quality.

 

No, they're not just for pros who "need" the sharpness, contrast and speed
of the "L" lenses, they're for anyone who WANTS those qualities!

 

You bet!! If I could sell my car and other stuff online back in India
and get the money then I would've done it in instant.

Correction. Negative networth, not zero networth!!

Heh, after a 300D, the accessories, and two Sigma lenses (24-135mm and
70-300mm), I am so broke that I can't even dream of a $800 lens!!

- Siddhartha

 

It was inside a mall in the night and the lighting was good but I was

You didn't notice what the ISO was, did you?

steve

 

I was trying to shoot some lit-up ferries at night while they were in
motion with kit lens and given the slow shutter speeds that you get in
the night coupled with the fact that the ferries were in motion gave me
blurred photos. Shutter speeds would come to 1/2 or 1/4 sec and so I
thought even if I bought a gazillion dollar lens, it would still
improve to 1/8sec maybe. But I guess I know the answer now

Anyways, I'll take my kit lens to the same spot tomorrow and see what
shutter speed does it throw up at f3.5. Ideally, half a stop difference
should give me a shutter speed of somewhere around 1/400sec (the 70-200
"L" gave me 1/500sec).

Now now, I am in no way trying to compare them but just want to check.

- Siddhartha

 

Apart from the Canon, there were ofcourse Nikon and Minolta. The Canon
and Minolta guys readily let me play with the cameras. Infact, the
Canon guy had to do some legwork to get the 1Ds-mark-II out of the
showcase. The Nikon guy discouraged me from asking him to take the
camera out of the showcase (D70). First directed me to a colleague, who
directed me back to this guy. Then just pointed at the D70 in the
showcase when I asked him to bring it out. Only when I repeated that I
want it my hands did she yield!! Sheesh!!

Then went to the Sigma guy who announced that he was die-hard Sigma
fan. His reasoning was my Sigma, for half the price of Canon, will last
me four years. The Canon will last me eight years. After four years, I
will have a new lens while the Canon guy will have a four year old lens
Heheh ... interesting viewpoint.

- Siddhartha

 

Why? Only a pro would do that!

 

I did - it was ISO 100. I'll go over to Sigma's stall tomorrow and
check their 70-200mm f2.8 EX IF HSM.

- Siddhartha

 

That's a steal, the comparable Nikon lens is $1,600

 

The basic rule with any optics is simple: never look through it unless
you can afford it.

 

....because the more expensive it is the more likely you are to be blown away
by its results.

C

 

I think you would find the 70-200mm F/2.8 L lens will last you a long
time and it is not likely that a better lens will come out (yeah, one
can never say never). But if you get such a top lens, when you
have money to get another lens it can be something completely
different. (I own both sigma, Canon regular, and Canon L lenses).
I do not agree with the sigma guy replacing a lens every 4 years.
If so, it is a crappy lens and shouldn't have been bought in the
first place in my opinion (unless one is just starting out and
you plan on such replacement because you can't afford the top
right off--it's taking me 20+ years to build my system and I'm
still working on it ;-)

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com

 

The 70-200 2.8 IS is the best performing lens in my collection, and worth every penny of
it's cost.
Fantastic in EVERY respect.
The L's really do perform incredibly well, and are sure to live well beyond lesser lenses.
Save your pennies...you WON'T regret your purchase.
-Mark

 

Hee hee hee.

 

I think she means "$800" for the SIGMA!

-The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS is around $1600-$1700.

 

I didn't really agree with his logic but was just kind of blogging from
Photoworld, here.

- Siddhartha

 

Amazon.com points at new and used $590-$500.

Am I looking at the wrong lens?

 

That's the f4 lens you're looking at.

This is the f2.8:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-1278197-0620661

 

Ulp.

Red-face smiley.