Any photographers in here?

[tekkie]

btw, why did you pick the 2.8 over the 4?

at f/4, the 4 is actually sharper, strangely. I'm thinking I might go with the 4, but I'm interested to see how you like the 2.8.

you read this where? I doubt the 4 is sharper at 4 than a 2.8 stepped down to 4

I have the 2.8 non IS and supposedly its sharper than the IS one, its pretty sharp at 2.8 at 4 its even sharper

Funky did you get the 2.8 I or the new II ? why not just wait the first version will drop in price now that the new version is out

 

[blynd_spy]

I like the second one a lot. Framing seems off to me...but amazing you could get something that crisp given the conditions!

thanks, first time i had a microfibre cloth get soaked. most came out like this but is still kinda a neat effect..i think

some other cool effects from wiping off the lens

 

[sleeper3]

you read this where? I doubt the 4 is sharper at 4 than a 2.8 stepped down to 4

I have the 2.8 non IS and supposedly its sharper than the IS one, its pretty sharp at 2.8 at 4 its even sharper

Funky did you get the 2.8 I or the new II ? why not just wait the first version will drop in price now that the new version is out

picture is the f2.8, mouseover is the f4

it's very slight, but you can see it. For the money, I am thinking I'd do better with the f4. I'm actually trying to decide between that and the 100-400 with the variable aperture, because that lens is super sharp wide open at 400 too. comperable to any of the 70-200s with a teleconverter on it.

 

[sleeper3]

the difference is more dramatic on lower resolution cameras than the 1ds mkIII

 

[Element238]

I'm definitely an amateur, but what I've found is very important is creativity. You can have the best camera in the world, but without some creativity your pictures will look bland. You have to find a good location and then come up with a creative way to take the pictures. I personally have a Cannon A 630 and I've taken some really nice shots with it. I find that images from corners turn out the best.

 

[FunkyBuddha]

Because it's one of the sharpest lenses at 2.8. At F4, it's as sharp as the 200mmF4.

And with the 200F4, it doesn't really do well indoors since I shoot a lot of weddings in the summer. I'd have to bring the ISO up which isn't really the best solution. I'd also require the IS when shooting handheld indoors.

Even with a 1.4x teleconverter, I get a F4 at 280mm instead of a 200mm F4. I get that extra reach.

 

[sleeper3]

great gear sure doesn't hurt though.

 

[sleeper3]

Because it's one of the sharpest lenses at 2.8. At F4, it's as sharp as the 200mmF4.

And with the 200F4, it doesn't really do well indoors since I shoot a lot of weddings in the summer. I'd have to bring the ISO up which isn't really the best solution. I'd also require the IS when shooting handheld indoors.

Even with a 1.4x teleconverter, I get a F4 at 280mm instead of a 200mm F4. I get that extra reach.

if reach is what you want, you should have gotten the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM

check out the difference at ~300mm and ~f/4

also, the new version of the 70-200 f/4 has IS also.

 

[sleeper3]

I'm interested to see what your pictures look like at f/2.8

a lot of people with the f/2.8 lens say that they won't shoot wider than f/4 except in an emergency anyway. I want to see what it looks like.

 

[tekkie]

picture is the f2.8, mouseover is the f4

it's very slight, but you can see it. For the money, I am thinking I'd do better with the f4. I'm actually trying to decide between that and the 100-400 with the variable aperture, because that lens is super sharp wide open at 400 too. comperable to any of the 70-200s with a teleconverter on it.

I wouldn't say its super sharp at 400, its sharp but its not as sharp as the 400 5.6, I have had 2 x 100-400's

not sure its sharper than the 70-200 & 1.4 TC either to be honest

 

[sleeper3]

I wouldn't say its super sharp at 400, its sharp but its not as sharp as the 400 5.6, I have had 2 x 100-400's

not sure its sharper than the 70-200 & 1.4 TC either to be honest

that site has every different combo cropped at 100%. you can compare everything. I've done it. I'm not just whistling dixie.(eek2)


post something that you took with the 100-400. I'd like to see what it has to offer.

 

[Wagonbacker9]

I'm interested to see what your pictures look like at f/2.8

a lot of people with the f/2.8 lens say that they won't shoot wider than f/4 except in an emergency anyway. I want to see what it looks like.

PHOTO EMERGENCY *sounds alarm*

 

[tekkie]

That site is from one place of one lens, the 100-400 lens is known to vary greatly and the chance of getting a super sharp one is uncommon from the people that I know that have them. As I said I have had 2 and I would not consider either of them super sharp, it maybe super sharp vs what your comparing but if you compare it to the 400 5.6 its not. Is the site a reputable place yes ( I use it as well) but its not gospel by any means.

is it a good lens yes, do I plan to sell mine no! because its totally versatile

regardless 70-200 2.8 does something the 100-400 doesnt, it does 2.8 which is damn important in low light which is why I have both and to be honest rarely use either of

 

[sleeper3]

I don't think I'm going to ever have a huge collection of primes, so the 100-400 sounds nice.

you want to sell either of them?

 

[tekkie]

dont get me wrong the 100-400 is a very nice lens, I sold one of mine a few months ago

but no I dont want to sell it

it was the first L I purchased and have never regretted it, the only lens I have regretted is selling my 400 5.6 which was so sharp !! that was dumb I should have kept it

 

[sleeper3]

put something up that you took with your 100-400!

 

[tekkie]

put something up that you took with your 100-400!

been a while so I cant even remember which ones

I know this one was for sure, its not the sharpest I took with it for sure

 

[sleeper3]

niceeeee though. me likey.

 

[altspace]

Yes, no, maybe? Nobody likes them?

 

[sleeper3]

Yes, no, maybe? Nobody likes them?

huh?