Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
hotdog321
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,713
Like?
Re: Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?
In reply to Al Downie, 4 months ago

Al Downie wrote:

The important thing to recognise about 'professionals' (I used to be one) is not that they're better photographers than the rest of us, or more knowledgeable, or more demanding of equipment. It's simply that their living depends on them getting a usable shot. In the case of photojournalists and press photographers (probably the groups who rely most on the 70-200 f2.8), their picture editors won't be looking for artistic bokeh, or eye-watering sharpness - the only thing that matters is getting that shot of Obama sneezing, or the child crying, or the angry Islamic mob, or whatever. The 70-200 is dependable and versatile, but it's not spectacular compared to any prime in its range; nor does it do anything special. In the right hands, it's as good as a guarantee of getting a *usable* shot, and that's all a professional needs. If you don't have to work under that kind of pressure, you'll probably have a lot more fun with good primes.

If you're looking for something *REALLY* special to spend your money on, why not save a bit longer for the 200mm f2? That's an astonishing piece of glass!

Well said--and I agree completely. The final image is the thing. Though the 70-200 or the new 24-70 compare favorably to primes. I have high hopes for the new 16-35, too. Canon deserves some real kudos for coming up with some incredibly complex, tough and sharp zoom lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow