Bob -> 70-200?

[Andy M]

Just wanted to hear your thoughts on whether or not you were correct - as recommended by MANY of us - not to choose the 70-200 as your only lens?

[Andy M]

BOB!!

[UKBob]

Andy M said:

Just wanted to hear your thoughts on whether or not you were correct - as recommended by MANY of us - not to choose the 70-200 as your only lens?

Long post alert. For reasons explained below.

I really dont do a great job of explaining myself, I know. More than once PHers have mentioned (off PH, referencing these threads) that Im a bad listener, because I dont take advice and Im that not listening to what is being said :sigh:

I ask. I read. I listen. My questions get answered. If I dont start shooting raw, does that mean I think those who said its better are (snigger)... liars?? (if not, then what??) Do I need to laboriously mirror back to those with opinions what they are telling me, affirming and reinstating that my brain has taken on board various bits of information. I was the one asking the questions, and I do believe I got the answers I was after. Theres nothing more to it than that mate.

My original plans were to buy both lenses within the shortest space of time possible, and I fully expected that time to be minimal. Think about it for a minute. Wasnt I the one weighing up the odds? I never once said that I would choose only one lens, and stick with it. Not even close. At all times I made it clear I wanted both. If a few unexpected turns in business hadnt left me a five figure sum of money out of pocket this year, I'd have em both right now. Cant afford them both so... I dont.

To answer your question, if I knew with certainty that I would not have had to stick with only one lens for this long, Id have gone for the 70-200 first without a shadow of doubt Its a lot more fun, what I wanted, and would give me reach my canon G5 never had. Id still have the kit lens and would have opened up doors to possibilities which are currently closed tight.

The only reason I went for the 24-70 was caution. I had no way of knowing whether I would have the money to buy the 24-70 immediately following the purchase of the 70-200. It was I who, in taking your advice, plus being cautios which ultimately made the right decision in getting the 24-70. Back to that in a minute, but first...

RAW vs JPEG. We all know which is better. Ive never related to the "I told you so" mentality and I'll switch... when I feel like switching. I do believe Ive always said "when I switch" too, and never "if I switch"

For the record simpo, I lost count of the number of times I wanted to post saying I wished I could have afforded to go for the 70-200 first. For the reason that I was embarassed about my financial situaion (which was rosier earlier in the year) I didnt.

Besides. Things have changed. Candid street stuff lacks the appeal it once had (was top of my list before). Stock rocks, and the 24-70 is ideal for stock.

[UKBob]

Ive just re-read your post. And you did use the words "only lens" which confirms my point.

Let me put it another way. If I was buying a new camera next month, and I had just one lens to start with it would be the 100-400 (as recommended by phers) and not the 70-200

[joust]

UKBob said:

Let me put it another way. If I was buying a new camera next month, and I had just one lens to start with it would be the 100-400 (as recommended by phers) and not the 70-200

Why? The 100-400 is sooo much more heavy than the 70-200 and a 2x in your pocket, and granted, at 100% at <f8 there is a visible difference between the two, but post processing sorts that out, and if you have a camera with little noise at ISO200 or 400 you can easily, in most outdoor shoots that need 200-400mm get above f8.

I'd happily lug my 5d+70-200 around all day, allowing easy close up work (70mm on a full frame camera like the 5d is ideal apart from very close up shots) and only when needed, putting the 2x on.

I thought long and hard about this, and given a lot of stuff I (we???) shoot either ends up on the web at 750 pixels wide, or printed on a 6x4 digital print, you'd never tell the difference between a 100-400 or 70-200+2x apart from the sheer weight and 'front heavyness' when you extend it of the 400.

I have a monopod in my car permantly since I bought the 70-200, and never taken it out as it's an easy lump to carry for hours on end, and never feels 'heavy' when shooting.

J

Edited by joust on Tuesday 29th August 19:11

[UKBob]

I wouldnt buy the non-IS version due to the noise high ISO creates (what with my stock stuff etc). Sounds good to me Its just the price tag that I dont like

[joust]

Surely you have it on a tripod for stock?

I bought the 70-200L IS

J

[UKBob]

joust said:

Surely you have it on a tripod for stock?

Almost never. Like a professional pornographer, I dance about the room shooting anything that moves.

The flash take care of camera shake, so no. When walking about, I could really use IS. I only wish my 24-70 had it

joust said:

I bought the 70-200L IS

Who looks after it when you are on holiday?

Edited by UKBob on Tuesday 29th August 22:25

[srider]

joust said:

UKBob said:

Let me put it another way. If I was buying a new camera next month, and I had just one lens to start with it would be the 100-400 (as recommended by phers) and not the 70-200

Why? The 100-400 is sooo much more heavy than the 70-200 and a 2x in your pocket, and granted, at 100% at <f8 there is a visible difference between the two, but post processing sorts that out, and if you have a camera with little noise at ISO200 or 400 you can easily, in most outdoor shoots that need 200-400mm get above f8.

I'd happily lug my 5d+70-200 around all day, allowing easy close up work (70mm on a full frame camera like the 5d is ideal apart from very close up shots) and only when needed, putting the 2x on.

I thought long and hard about this, and given a lot of stuff I (we???) shoot either ends up on the web at 750 pixels wide, or printed on a 6x4 digital print, you'd never tell the difference between a 100-400 or 70-200+2x apart from the sheer weight and 'front heavyness' when you extend it of the 400.

I have a monopod in my car permantly since I bought the 70-200, and never taken it out as it's an easy lump to carry for hours on end, and never feels 'heavy' when shooting.

J

Edited by joust on Tuesday 29th August 19:11

Eh? The 70-200 is HEAVIER than the 100-400!

[Andy M]

UKBob said:

stuff

Apologies Bob, my brain is currently addled so I took very little of that in. It appears you're pretty happy with your 24-70 and that's al that counts

If you use the flash a lot, and want/need IS why not buy a 24-105 L?

[joust]

srider said:

Eh? The 70-200 is HEAVIER than the 100-400!

No it's not

Sorry, wrongly worded .

What I really mean is that the 70-200 weight is closer to the camera at 200mm, giving less apparent weight when you hold it.

With the push pull 100-400 the weight, whilst less, is much further spread from the camera, and as most weight is apparent weight in you having to keep the camera vertical that makes a big difference (which is what I implied afterwards).

Sorry!

J

[UKBob]

Andy M said:

Apologies Bob, my brain is currently addled so I took very little of that in. It appears you're pretty happy with your 24-70 and that's al that counts

If you use the flash a lot, and want/need IS why not buy a 24-105 L?

No apologies necessary I was venting, and the diatribe was more of a response to the "ya dont listen" comments of the last 3 months. I listen, I learn, I make my own choices at the end of the day. And yes Im content

I weighed up the pro's and cons of the 24-70 vs 105 lenses (hard to do, when youve never used an SLR) and went for the 24-70L because I was led to believe it would produce images which (bokeh, sharpness, colour rendition... I cant remember as its been a while) would be ever so slightly better than the 105.

I dont regret it at all, but would like to try a 105 one day to see what its like.

Edited by UKBob on Tuesday 29th August 23:27