What lens (hehe)
Discussion
After selling the Monaro I have some budget for a fresh lens. Am after some extra length in case I do decide to do more voyeur work at parties etc (been asked to do a few weddings). Far away = more natural as they dont know you are shooting them but I also want it for main portrait
Now the two contenders are:
1.) The Canon 200 f2.8 prime - love primes but I am so lazy I tend to take the 24-105 for most shoots as its got enough range for me and saves me moving back and forth (yes lazy I know). Benefit being this is a 2.8 and a light enough lens, fairly discrete too as its a black body. You cannot beat primes for ultimate picture quality as they have no compromises in them. Disadvantage its fixed at 200 which is quite long, could prove an issue for snaps that are at a closer distance
2.) the Canon F4 70 to 200. Obvious advantage being it is more in the portrait range from 70 and gives me a lazy option. Downside is potential weight, no IS so possible stability issues at 200mm in lower light situations focing higher shutter speeds. Its a fair bit cheaper than the prime too but its about as discrete as Desmond Tutu in a kapa shell suit whilst riding a unicycle
opinions/advice? The remaining budget is going on a few skyports and umbrella clips
Now the two contenders are:
1.) The Canon 200 f2.8 prime - love primes but I am so lazy I tend to take the 24-105 for most shoots as its got enough range for me and saves me moving back and forth (yes lazy I know). Benefit being this is a 2.8 and a light enough lens, fairly discrete too as its a black body. You cannot beat primes for ultimate picture quality as they have no compromises in them. Disadvantage its fixed at 200 which is quite long, could prove an issue for snaps that are at a closer distance
2.) the Canon F4 70 to 200. Obvious advantage being it is more in the portrait range from 70 and gives me a lazy option. Downside is potential weight, no IS so possible stability issues at 200mm in lower light situations focing higher shutter speeds. Its a fair bit cheaper than the prime too but its about as discrete as Desmond Tutu in a kapa shell suit whilst riding a unicycle
opinions/advice? The remaining budget is going on a few skyports and umbrella clips
70-200 f2.8 IS 
Used it at a couple of weddings now, it really doesn't take a bad shot!
edited, should have read your post properly, that lens wasn't an option.
The f4 IS version is supposed to be decent, not sure about the non-is version though..
Used it at a couple of weddings now, it really doesn't take a bad shot!
edited, should have read your post properly, that lens wasn't an option.
The f4 IS version is supposed to be decent, not sure about the non-is version though..
Edited by 4hero on Saturday 16th May 11:55
about 2 minutes after seeing it. Thats actually very tempting and she would never know...
Cheers for the great offer Luke, no idea where you are in relation to Swindon though. I am tempted by the f4 simply on price and flexibility. I only have two primes at 1.8 and rarely find f4 a problem as I personally dont mind noise from ISO. The mk2 is great at high iso anyway and noise/grain was always something I went for in film.
There is a calumet near me that do hire out, makes sense to hire each for a weekend and take it from there
There is a calumet near me that do hire out, makes sense to hire each for a weekend and take it from there
You're a bit further than I imagined! About 75miles north of me.
It is a cracking lens and I've been most impressed by it, definitely worth a try!
Even if I'd had the money for the 2.8 (IS or not) I still think I'd have been put off by the weight... with a bag and a few other lenses I think I'd get tired dragging that around!
It is a cracking lens and I've been most impressed by it, definitely worth a try!
Even if I'd had the money for the 2.8 (IS or not) I still think I'd have been put off by the weight... with a bag and a few other lenses I think I'd get tired dragging that around!
Re-reading your post above, I recall now you have a 5D Mk2.
I guess with the impressive ISO and improved handling of noise, the F4 would probably make less of difference unless you want to shoot at very fast shutter speeds; which I presume from your justification of purchase is pretty much irrelevant!
It has to be pretty crappy conditions for me to wish for either a bigger aperture or the ability to bump the ISO up further (I have a 40D). I reckon you'll be fine with the f4 and more left in your wallet!
I guess with the impressive ISO and improved handling of noise, the F4 would probably make less of difference unless you want to shoot at very fast shutter speeds; which I presume from your justification of purchase is pretty much irrelevant!
It has to be pretty crappy conditions for me to wish for either a bigger aperture or the ability to bump the ISO up further (I have a 40D). I reckon you'll be fine with the f4 and more left in your wallet!
stigmundfreud said:
There is a calumet near me that do hire out, makes sense to hire each for a weekend and take it from there
Try this place Stiggy, very friendly service and I'd guess a fair bit cheaper than Calumet.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff