Another thread ‘Portraits taken with the 70-200 f/2.8’ is going very well, and we are enjoying a lot of wonderful portraits taken with this great Canon white lens.
How does f/4 version work in this department?
Show us your portraits taken with 70-200 f/4 (IS or non-IS).
Like both captures. Didn't see the little guy until I had scrolled up and down between the two at least 3 times! That's too cute! Look at those (not so) tiny claws...
Nice! The IS version of this lens has been on my upgrade list for a few years now. Always waffling between that and the 2.8, but weight and cost drawbacks always keep me in line.
no_surrender wrote:
Like both captures. Didn't see the little guy until I had scrolled up and down between the two at least 3 times! That's too cute! Look at those (not so) tiny claws...
I enjoyed the images what they are indented for. However, looking at the very poor response it is clear that the less conspicuous f/4 version is not meant for human portraits.
I used to have a Bulldog with that shade of Brindle (though, no white except for the face). I've not found many dogs out there that match this shade.
Max10 wrote:
Another thread ‘Portraits taken with the 70-200 f/2.8’ is going very well, and we are enjoying a lot of wonderful portraits taken with this great Canon white lens.
How does f/4 version work in this department?
Show us your portraits taken with 70-200 f/4 (IS or non-IS).
As mentioned above, the other thread is open to any 70-200 (or 80-200 from other brands, for that matter), but another picture thread is great.
Thanks for sharing a nice capture. I am also a pet lover.
I have accidentally discovered that EF 70-200L f/4 (IS or non-IS) is a great lens for shooting pets.
I will be buying two lenses very soon. EF 70-200L f/2.8 IS for human portraits and EF 70-200L f/4 IS for pets.
Cheers!!!
Max
Perhaps there is some humor here that I don't get. I would think that the f/2.8 (or f/4) version would do either. Why would you buy both lenses when money could be better spent on another lens without redundancy?
galenapass wrote:
Perhaps there is some humor here that I don't get. I would think that the f/2.8 (or f/4) version would do either. Why would you buy both lenses when money could be better spent on another lens without redundancy?
The EF 70-200 f/4 IS is much more portable than the f/2.8 version when your carrying two bodies, one with a EF 300 f/4 IS attached, plus a EF 17-40 for the wide stuff and hand holding all of your shots (maybe 1200/day for 3 days, while hiking a 2.5 mile road course in the foothills of northeast Georgia all in good light.
The EF 70-200 f/2.8 is a great lens and I see many at the track…but my arms are still able to lift a cold beer or two at the end of the day
Wow...She really cleans up nicely!!! That second picture of her is much better than the first!!! It must be the lighting in the second shot with the nice backlight. Cause that direct light is really not flattering!!!
:
