Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 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!

70-200 f4 vs ??

profile picture
Alias_
Posts: 82 - Karma: 61
i'm missing a zoom lens and i only have 500$ left. Should i go for the f4? or is there a runner-up that i should look into?

canno 75-300 seemed alright but i'd rather spend a bit more on a better performing lens.

thoughts comments insight?


80% for video
20% for photo
on the ol t2i

cheers
Jun 7 2013 9:26PM
9 3
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
If it's skiing you could look into a vintage lens, the 70-200 is awesome, and imo the ultimate photo lens for skiing, but if you're only doing 20% photo your money would probably be better spent elsewhere
Jun 7 2013 9:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Alias_
Posts: 82 - Karma: 61
......
Jun 8 2013 1:05AM
0 3
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
What in the fuck are you smoking?
Jun 8 2013 10:11AM
2 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
ok yeah I may have worded that pretty badly.
Jun 8 2013 10:27AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,093
I mean, its also the ultimate tele zoom for video..

OP, get the 70-200
Jun 8 2013 12:46PM
0 0
profile picture
TravelsTI
Posts: 1000 - Karma: 353
I use it the most for video, get the IS though.
Jun 8 2013 1:39PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,093
IS isn't that important for video, if you have a halfway decent tripod it won't make any difference and you're not gonna hand hold 70-200...
Jun 8 2013 2:10PM
1 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
if you have money, id go for it. i hear its quite a bit sharper than the normal f4.
Jun 8 2013 2:15PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,093
I doubt you can tell the difference on video
Jun 8 2013 2:45PM
1 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Yeah, if anything I'd go for the 2.8 non-is. Even then, for skiing, it's not worth the extra weight....
Jun 8 2013 2:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
Didn't I hear somewhere that the f4 was sharper than the 2.8(both i and ii) at all but f4? correct me if I'm wrong.
Jun 8 2013 2:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Bmo.
Posts: 4907 - Karma: 2,667
na im pretty sure you're right, the 2.8 is just behind the 4. both are sharper than their IS versions
Jun 8 2013 4:26PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,093
and all 4 look the same @1080p
Jun 8 2013 7:05PM
1 0
profile picture
Bmo.
Posts: 4907 - Karma: 2,667
Agreed
Jun 8 2013 7:07PM
1 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Well it's not just sharpness. For photo that extra stop can be really handy as a lot of the shooting I do for skateboarding is at night...
Jun 8 2013 10:36PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,246
nopenopenope.avi

From sharpest to not:
-2.8L IS V2
-4L IS (These two are really close)
-4L NON
-2.8L
-2.8L IS V1
Jun 9 2013 11:48AM
0 0
profile picture
Bmo.
Posts: 4907 - Karma: 2,667
srsly? oops
Jun 9 2013 12:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Bmo.
Posts: 4907 - Karma: 2,667
well fuck, that was the lamest 4000th post ever
Jun 9 2013 12:14PM
1 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Sigma and Tamron both make 70-200 f2.8's. Sell used for pretty affordable prices. For video, you really wouldn't tell much a difference from the Canon L's.


Jun 10 2013 3:59AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)