Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

All photographers needed

profile picture
[Dawn
Posts: 1718 - Karma: 69
im looking for a sub $1000 lens that can take quality shots (and good looking sequences) im looking into the EF 70-200m f/4L USM (cannon)

what do you think? any other ideas?
Aug 13 2009 12:35AM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357
I would say thats a good choice. i have wanted to get one of those for a long time. What body would you be putting it on?
Aug 13 2009 8:32AM
0 0
profile picture
DrZoidberg
Posts: 5675 - Karma: 4,268
Your camera's frame rate is going to determine how sequences look, unless you're talking about image quality when you say "good looking sequences." That does sound like a good lens though, I Wish i had one. I think Dan Carr wrote a review on one once... http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2009/03/30/70-200-f4-l-is-initial-thoghts/

if that doesn't work: http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2009/03/30/70-200-f4-l-is-initial-thoghts/

I think he has the IS one, but that just adds weight, cost, and a really cool feature.
Aug 13 2009 10:26AM
0 0
profile picture
[Dawn
Posts: 1718 - Karma: 69
i'll be putting it on my XSI.. and yeah the IS verson just adds like 2 inches, more weight, and 300 dollars, and that's way more than i want to spend
Aug 14 2009 2:29PM
0 0
profile picture
wrenegade
Posts: 6631 - Karma: 41
If you are shooting sports IS isn't very useful because you'll be shooting at a higher enough shutter speed to negate camera shake. And that is a great lens. You may be able to find a f/2.8 for under a grand (I found mine for $1050 CAD), but it is A LOT bigger/heavier.
Aug 14 2009 5:46PM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357
yeah but if she's on a good enough body she can just up the iso. Also, I was assuming you were using this for skiing, where lighting conditions are usually really bright, so i also assumed that f/4 would be enough. If you're suing this for stuff other than skiing then the f/2.8 would obviously be better, but you could still have the f/4 and get around with it just fine.

Also if you're using a 1.6x crop body then it's not going to be anything near wide, it'd be a 112-320 f/4L. Maybe just carry a wide prime then.
Aug 14 2009 9:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Franny
Posts: 3980 - Karma: 77
I really need a dslr. I still have a minolta film slr for school and thats about the clostest thing i have to a dslr.
Aug 14 2009 9:23PM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357
I'm shooting stuff with a 1N (35mm slr) and a bronica (mf slr), fuck digital stuff, a full frame one is so expensive.
Aug 14 2009 9:40PM
0 0
profile picture
skibikeclambake
Posts: 2346 - Karma: 27
where do you go to school?
Aug 14 2009 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
andrewmeehan
Posts: 765 - Karma: 363
i think you spelled canon wrong.

canon not cannon


Aug 15 2009 1:35AM
0 0
profile picture
[Dawn
Posts: 1718 - Karma: 69
bump.

Aug 17 2009 11:30AM
0 0
profile picture
[Dawn
Posts: 1718 - Karma: 69
uh im using this for skiing AND other stuff...
Aug 17 2009 11:31AM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,270
i have that lens and love it, i never find myself wanting the is or 2.8 aperture, i have a 1.8 prime for super wide aperture stuff. i usually shoot outside so there's enough light to get fast shutter speeds and even inside i just crank the iso, i used this lens on an xsi as well and i found you could get nice shots at high iso

this lens is great though, L glass can't be beaten
Aug 22 2009 12:09AM
0 0
profile picture
*stew
Posts: 488 - Karma: 124
i think from canon that a pretty good lens for the price
Sep 3 2009 11:58PM
0 0
profile picture
skituner
Posts: 1162 - Karma: 127
get the 2.8 its worth it. it is the sharpest of all the 70-200s and while it maybe bigger and heavier, who cares, it looks baller. i got mine used in perfect condition off b&h for around $900. 
Sep 4 2009 12:29AM
0 0
profile picture
[Dawn
Posts: 1718 - Karma: 69
link to the 2.8? +K
Sep 4 2009 1:29AM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,682
I would get the 70-200 4 IS, the reason being is that it is $600 cheaper then the 2.8 IS, much lighter and smaller. The 70-200 4 IS is ~ the same size and weight as the non IS. If you decide you do need the 2.8 save up and get the IS one. The reason is that the two IS 70-200's are fully sealed against water dust, where the two non IS ones are. The 70-200 4 IS is also the sharpest of the series.
I would go with the 70-200 4 IS over the 2.8 IS due to price and size. It is much easier to carry the 4 IS around then the 2.8. Also with the money you can get a 85 1.8, a 15mm 2.8, or almost enough for a 135 2.0! (which is money!)
Sep 4 2009 1:56AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)