Quote:
Originally Posted by UdubBadger
yeah i never said I didn't but remember i only had it for like 10 min before we got harassed by the po-po's.
I just wanted to know what its like walking around with it for 2 hrs or more... i think the F4 IS is gonna be fine
|
I'll say, that I walked in downtown NYC from 90th to 18th, and back to 55th with the 70-200 F2.8 IS/L around my neck, and I was feelin fine
dont let the weight be a factor
you'll kick yourself later when you realize that in low light, unless youre hauling around your tripod everywhere, youre going to really love the 2.8 and the bokeh it produces. Its amazing imo...
forgot to add...
1) if you get the macro extension tube, you will have an F2.8 IS/L macro lens, canon doesnt have very many IS macro lenses (and the tube is so cheap relatively)
2) if you get the 1.4x magnifier add-on, then youll have a 280mm length to go to, with IS, and F4....the same cannot be said for the F4 lens, which if you add this on, youre giving up low light ability pretty much completely sans tripod. (so..on a canon crop sensor....70*1.6*1.4 & 200*1.6*1.4= 156.8mm-448mm F4 IS /L....for about 150 bucks more....thats unreal imo, thats one helluva telephoto<<<THIS REASON ALONE SHOULD MAKE YOU WANT THE 2.8 over the 4.0
I went over this question for myself a thousand times, and if it wasnt for the cost, I wouldve never even questioned. The 2.8 is as sharp as the F4 IS/L @ F4, but it just has that extra wonderful 2.8 stop which (while very sharp, is not AS sharp as the super sharp F4)....but its being supremely nitpicky...its an amazing lens you wont ever have to upgrade (well...for a while @ least)