An excellent choice Chris, that lens takes a 1.4x TC very nicely as well. I've actually seen images from that lens with a 1.4 and 2x converter stacked and the results were still very good. You have to be vey happy with those shots.
Yes.Liz,a large improvement,its a prime lens which means no zoom
fewer elements,very sharpe images,it feels like it focouses quicker.as i said these images taken within first hour of use,hand held.i am told
when used with tripod,even better results,also its new,need to get use to it,but so far its pretty easy to get to get images like the above.
I bought it for bird photography,and in that field want to hopefully get
some good raptor pics with it.
The lens was worth the money,i would recommend L lenses
Phil - sure, it'll take the TCs, but you won't get AF unless you have a 1 series body. Even then, with the 2x TC, you won't get AF with a 1 series body, only with the 1.4x TC.
Chris - excellent shots. That's a super lens you have there, it'll serve you will for years to come. Artie Morris swears by this lens too. If you don't know who he is, Google him and enjoy. Oh, and get his Book (on CD) - well worth the cost imho.
Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolite
An excellent choice Chris, that lens takes a 1.4x TC very nicely as well. I've actually seen images from that lens with a 1.4 and 2x converter stacked and the results were still very good. You have to be vey happy with those shots.
Really like these shots of yours. So much detail from a great lens, indeed.
Chris, I have no experience with such a lens as this, I wonder how far were you able to be from the subject?
From the viewpoint of photographing weddings, IS is a must in dimly lit churches and indoor events.
Having said that, I use my 200mm f/2.8L prime that doesn't have IS, for the formal portaits after the ceremony and every shot is crisp! Even in late afternoon shots, at f/2.8-f/5.6.
If you can afford the IS version of the 70-200, get it (there's a fair amount of premium over the non-IS version). Ultimately, just bear in mind that it is a heavy beast, and, your final decision will rest on what you wish to photograph.
Chris, if you intend to do terrestrial, IS is a big plus, as for filters, I try to avoid them, in my experience filters often soften the image or introduce additional reflections.
On the other hand if you're rough on your gear and likely to knock your lenses then filters are good insurance, in that case buy the best you can afford (Kenko Pro or Hoya Pro for example) and buy slim versions if you are using wide angle.
As for the 70-200, I went for the F4 IS version, it's much cheaper, lighter, more compact and is reputed to be as sharp or sharper.
Unless you really need the extra speed of the 2.8 or want a really shallow DOF there's little point in spending the extra on the 2.8, the difference in price will buy you a good macro lens.
,
