p.2 #2 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Better choice for what? .. how can anyone suggest a lens to you without knowing what you shoot?
I shoot everything.... documentary, landscape, people, etc.
which you would think would mean I'd want a zoom
but I usually use prime 35, 40 or 50mm
I never use my 24-105
I do like the 17-40, but honestly if I could get a weather sealed 20-24mm for this price I'd probably have bought that instead.
just typing that out made me think my initial instinct about the 135 is probably right. just because it's so much smaller and less conspicuous. but a telephoto fixed length isn't the same as a fixed 35.... five steps this way or that isn't gonna cut it
p.2 #3 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
goosemang wrote:
I shoot everything.... documentary, landscape, people, etc.
Narrows it down a bit .. what are your usual documentary lighting conditions? .. dark, indoors, outdoors, etc.?
Same for people .. light conditions and your ability to move around and / or place your subjects have a great impact on your lens choices. For example a wedding photographer often shooting in dark churches from a restricted position will have different lens needs than a fashion photographer shooting on location where he can direct model placement and he is free to move about & frame. But both are shooting people
I've said this before .. you don't choose a lens, it chooses you.
You should be asking yourself what you need, not us
p.2 #5 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Narrows it down a bit .. what are your usual documentary lighting conditions? .. dark, indoors, outdoors, etc.?
Same for people .. light conditions and your ability to move around and / or place your subjects have a great impact on your lens choices. For example a wedding photographer often shooting in dark churches from a restricted position will have different lens needs than a fashion photographer shooting on location where he can direct model placement and he is free to move about & frame. But both are shooting people
I've said this before .. you don't choose a lens, it chooses you.
You should be asking yourself what you need, not us ...Show more →
well, I'm not too concerned about the f2 vs f2.8. now that I shoot at 12,800 with impunity it doesn't matter *that* much
it's more about whether or not a prime in the telephoto range will be too restricted. I normally cannot rearrange my subjects... I usually rearrange myself with my primes. but like I mentioned I don't feel like that's as much of a possibility with a telephoto prime with the narrow fov. I'm also interested in using the compression in my landscapes.
the problem Is I haven't shot much in these focal lengths at all, and just want to have the capacity to do so on occasion.
p.2 #6 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
fwiw I agree with you that only the photographer can decide what's right for them. I'm just using this thread to help me generate ideas about my own shooting. right now I don't have a lot to go on as my longest lens tops out at 105mm, and as I mentioned I never use that lens.
p.2 #7 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
The only drawback of the 70-200 f2.8 non is (crikey, that's a load of typing) is that it's HEAVY.
But it's worth it. I love mine... love it more than the IS version I had and the non-IS f4 version I had. I use it to cut tomatoes for my sandwich it's so sharp.
p.2 #8 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
Are you shooting FF or crop body? Just curious. I have the 70-200 non IS and it made me move from an ancient (2008) Rebel to a 5D. It's just gorgeous FF.
I would like to buy a 135L someday as well. Started with the 70-200 because of its versatility.
p.2 #9 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
I was in the same boat as you for a while(thinking the 135mm would be THE lens).. Then I realized that I needed the 70-200 IS mkii. I easily prefer it over the 135mm. I use it mostly(90%) at 150-200mm but the zoom from 70mm is very convenient sometimes. Not sure if I would dare to go with the non IS version, but I'm sure it's just me not trusting my handholding skills @200mm.
There is definitely something magic with the lens, but the same can easily be said about the 135 Good luck!
p.2 #10 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
dmacmillan wrote:
Are you shooting FF or crop body? Just curious. I have the 70-200 non IS and it made me move from an ancient (2008) Rebel to a 5D. It's just gorgeous FF.
I would like to buy a 135L someday as well. Started with the 70-200 because of its versatility.
p.2 #11 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
TrojanHorse wrote:
The only drawback of the 70-200 f2.8 non is (crikey, that's a load of typing) is that it's HEAVY.
But it's worth it. I love mine... love it more than the IS version I had and the non-IS f4 version I had. I use it to cut tomatoes for my sandwich it's so sharp.
I love tomatoes
yeah the size... i wonder about the size. actually I know it's stupid big. and white. I've held it before, and I'm ok with heavy... but the bulk is definitely annoying if you don't wanna be "the guy with the camera"
p.2 #13 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
The f4L IS version is my goto...but only because the f2.8s are heavier...otherwise I'd get the f2.8 v2.
From what I read/seen the 135 f2L is stellar.
Tough call...if IS isn't needed/wanted and reach/the zoom FLs wont be used...I'd go for the prime.
p.2 #15 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
When I dropped -- I mean upgraded -- from non-IS to IS I I was pretty disappointed. The non-IS lens was very sharp. I'm happy again now that I have the IS II, but I could certainly be very happy with the non-IS I, as well. Very nice lens.
p.2 #16 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
goosemang wrote:
what this thread should really say is "i don't really need a telephoto but i want to blow some money"
i mean if we're being honest
plenty of nice places to go for $1000
but the 70-200 2.8 non-IS is pretty nice, only the 70-200 f/4 IS, 70-200 2.8 IS II and 70-300L are sharper, it's a great sports lens for wide angle field or indoor sports
then again one day my copy kicked me in the shin and stole my dog and ran off so maybe best save the money for somethging else
p.2 #17 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
goosemang wrote:
i don't have the 135 at this time. i'm trying to decide between the two.
basically i use telephoto lengths pretty sparingly, so i really only want to pay for one telephoto lens. i was going to go with the 135 because of the speed and its reputation, but i'm wondering if the zoom may be a better choice
what do you shoot?
135 is barely telephoto at all, more like long regular
p.2 #18 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
skibum5 wrote:
what do you shoot?
135 is barely telephoto at all, more like long regular
it's long for me. i don't think I'd ever need anyone over 200mm ever. i could, and do, live with nothing longer than 100 right now. I'd never need those glorious $10,000 whites, thank god!
p.2 #19 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
good point about places to go for $1000. unfortunately my wife can't travel right now and there's a little goose on the way so I don't think I'm going very far for a good six months!
I really wanna go someplace out west... like the badlands
p.2 #20 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
goosemang wrote:
good point about places to go for $1000. unfortunately my wife can't travel right now and there's a little goose on the way so I don't think I'm going very far for a good six months!
I really wanna go someplace out west... like the badlands
C'mon out. It's about 60 miles from my house. And it will be easier to break your elbows...
Good luck!