Hey dudes! it's one of these threads again. I'm looking to pick up my first high quality tele lens, I've been considering three and I wanted to hear some input from what you guys are shooting with.
Ill be using it on a GH4 with a speedbooster XL, I mainly plan on using the lens in the back country.
The three I have been considering are:
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
Canon 70-200 f/4L IS
Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8
My main concerns is whether or not I can get away with using the f/4 or 4-5.6 on a crop body in lower light situations. I'd love to be able to save a bit of cash from the 2.8, plus the f/4 will end up sharper. I'm up in BC so as many of you know conditions get cloudy QUITE often.
For the Tamron my worry is durability since it is a plastic bodied lens, I'd like for whatever I get to be able to take a bit of a beating as well as a bit of wetness.
Cheers dudes!
Online
- Newschoolers
- Twig
- pow_pow~
- AnttiUusoksa
- BasileHaxaire
- DesertStix
- ECAK
- Loudee
- Marieka_Assink
- razors-chaz
- Velcroraptor
- 11 members 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!
Looking for some input on my first tele lens
I cant really attest to durability all that much, but I own the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 for my Canon 80D. The lens has definitely been thrown around in my camera bag a ton and I've used it in pouring rain and some really cold days but I wouldn't consider those scenarios as a testament to its durability. Love the lens though, less expensive than the Canon f/2.8 variant yet imo has exact same image quality
If you wanna save money, get the f4. You won't have issues until it actually starts to get dark, after the sun sets, a cloudy day isn't going to be too dark for a f4 lens.
I mean if it works with your budget, get the canon F2.8, no questions asked. Im a Sony Alpha mirrorless user (A7) and I have the Sony F/4 70-200 only because the F2.8 is like $3K, it gets the job done just fine until it starts to get slightly dark. With the 2.8 you'll get a way more shallow depth of field and a lot better low light performance
Cheers guys for the insight, I'm gonna take a little more of a look into the f/4 I think. Another quick question, is the IS worth the extra cash or no?
NightFantasiesCheers guys for the insight, I'm gonna take a little more of a look into the f/4 I think. Another quick question, is the IS worth the extra cash or no?
the Canon 70-200 f4 is sharper than the IS version, and smaller/lighter, I'd go with that. I loved that lens for years until my roommate sent it flying off a table. Replaced it with the Sony GM 70-200 f2.8, its incredibly beautiful and sharp (sharper than Canon's) but it hurt the wallet and its massive/heavy. I almost regret not getting another small cheap f4 since its so much easier to carry around. Definitely keep that in mind: how much weight are you willing to schlep around?
ski.the.eastthe Canon 70-200 f4 is sharper than the IS version, and smaller/lighter, I'd go with that. I loved that lens for years until my roommate sent it flying off a table. Replaced it with the Sony GM 70-200 f2.8, its incredibly beautiful and sharp (sharper than Canon's) but it hurt the wallet and its massive/heavy. I almost regret not getting another small cheap f4 since its so much easier to carry around. Definitely keep that in mind: how much weight are you willing to schlep around?
Hah good to get a confirmation! Definitely what I'm leaning towards. my tripod is already 13 or so lbs. so at this point my back is gonna be broken no matter how heavy the lens is....
All times are Eastern (-4)