Kerry Pierce wrote:Seems to me that an \"enthusiast\" would know the benefits and compromises of both lenses and which would be needed for his work.
Kerry
I\'m pretty sure I do - and I chose the f/4.
For me, the additional isolation offered by f/2.8 wasn\'t worth it. With VR, I don\'t need f/2.8 as much to trade off in hand-held low-light to avoid bumping the ISO. Most of my portraiture with this lens was shot at f/4 to get the whole head in focus. If I need more isolation/bokeh than that, I\'ve got an 85 f/1.8. In his case, he\'s got terrific ISO performance with a D600.
So what about f/2.8 means he should pay the weight/size penalty?
I don\'t know the OP, so I\'ll speak for myself as an enthusiast. I\'m not a pro. Most of my photography is part of something else: family time, a vacation, a car show, a fraction of a weekend. I\'m not a pro that carries around a rolling suitcase of gear. While I liked the sharpness, pro-build and low-light capability of the 80-200, the weight and bulk found it often left out of the bag.
I took the f/4 on my walk-around in Charleston this week, and it carried perfectly. I guess I\'ll occasionally miss f/2.8, but what good did it do me when it wasn\'t in my bag?
Feb 18, 2013 at 03:51 PM
Previous versions of M635_Guy's message #11357767 « Poll - which 70-200? »
