Reading mode: Light Dark

Lenses F2.8 of F4.0 ?

Go to last post
Go with the Canon 4.0L. It is a very good lens, lightweight enough you will carry it and use it. Very sharp as others have stated and shown. It is an L lens and will hold its value long after the simga is a give away for $50.

I own a lot of L glass amongst which is the 4.0L. You can get fairly soft backgrounds at 4.0 but 2.8 will be better. Actually 1.2 is best (my 85mm). If you are interested in portraits with a soft background get the 50mm 1,8 as well as the 4.0, pretty good set up.

One word of advice. The 4.0L is a 67mm filter size lens. You may want to get a step up ring to 72mm or 77mm and buy your filters in those higher sizes (not the uv you will have on normally but circ polarizers etc.). That way you will have filters in the future that fit on the more normal L lens sizes which are commonly 72 and 77. That way you will not need 2 sets of all of your filters.
Mario Jesmanowicz said:
I want to get that 70-200mm L USM Canon Lens. There are two choices
one at F2.0 and one at F4.0. $1200 is little bit too much for me.
This will be my first lens toward D60 so I also have to get wider
angle like 28-70. I almost gave up on F2.8 but then I saw sigmas
for around $600 70-200 F2.8 and then I went to reviews and also saw
VERY HIGH marks for Canon's 70-200 F4.0. Everyone says it is the
same or sharper as Canon's F2.8 yet only costs $600. It is lighter
and smaller.

So here are my chocice

Would you go with 2.8 Sigma or F4.0 Canon ???
Or would you with ONLY 2.8 Canon and no other lenses for a year ???

Also Some poeople say that F4.0 is VERY SHARP. Would I still be
able to get portraits with it at F4.0 from around 10-15feet, you
know blurred background ???

Is F4.0 usable indoor at games or $600 more really justifies
upgrading for that one F stop. I also understand that F2.8 is
heavy. I do plan on walking with it a lot.

What do you recomend???
Click to expand...
--GSmithCreate an image today that will make someone's day today.
 
BobT said:
Mario Jesmanowicz said:
BobT said:
The posts above should show my sample photos now.
Click to expand...
Ye they did. I was able to see the kid in the first photo and that
answered my question :) Also the leave is incredible. Is this on
D30 ???
Click to expand...
Yes, it was.

Here's another. I sort of use this lens as my "macro lens." I
zoom all the way, then get as close as I can, which is about 4 1/2
feet. Comes in handy with a subject like this:



This lens is my favorite of those I own, and has sold me on getting
more L lenses in the future. Good luck!
Click to expand...
--GSmithCreate an image today that will make someone's day today.
 
thanks for the advice. I think I will get Sigma 24-70mm 2.8, Canon 70-200mm F4 and maybe 50mm 1.8 or 1.4, not sure about the last one
George Smith said:
I own a lot of L glass amongst which is the 4.0L. You can get
fairly soft backgrounds at 4.0 but 2.8 will be better. Actually 1.2
is best (my 85mm). If you are interested in portraits with a soft
background get the 50mm 1,8 as well as the 4.0, pretty good set up.

One word of advice. The 4.0L is a 67mm filter size lens. You may
want to get a step up ring to 72mm or 77mm and buy your filters in
those higher sizes (not the uv you will have on normally but circ
polarizers etc.). That way you will have filters in the future that
fit on the more normal L lens sizes which are commonly 72 and 77.
That way you will not need 2 sets of all of your filters.
Mario Jesmanowicz said:
I want to get that 70-200mm L USM Canon Lens. There are two choices
one at F2.0 and one at F4.0. $1200 is little bit too much for me.
This will be my first lens toward D60 so I also have to get wider
angle like 28-70. I almost gave up on F2.8 but then I saw sigmas
for around $600 70-200 F2.8 and then I went to reviews and also saw
VERY HIGH marks for Canon's 70-200 F4.0. Everyone says it is the
same or sharper as Canon's F2.8 yet only costs $600. It is lighter
and smaller.

So here are my chocice

Would you go with 2.8 Sigma or F4.0 Canon ???
Or would you with ONLY 2.8 Canon and no other lenses for a year ???

Also Some poeople say that F4.0 is VERY SHARP. Would I still be
able to get portraits with it at F4.0 from around 10-15feet, you
know blurred background ???

Is F4.0 usable indoor at games or $600 more really justifies
upgrading for that one F stop. I also understand that F2.8 is
heavy. I do plan on walking with it a lot.

What do you recomend???
Click to expand...
--
GSmith

Create an image today that will make someone's day today.
Click to expand...
 
i have the 70-200 f4 for as long as it's been out...an excellent lens for portraits and landscape...nice bokeh, very sharp, light 4 traveling, smaller filter size..i do not miss the 2.8 stop...so u can go wrong w it...i also have the 50 1.4...a great lens for all around shots (especially w film cameras), be careful at 1.4 the depthoffield's very shallow...a used one 's not that expensive and that extra stop can help u w interior shooting w/o flash...go for it...u only live once! :-)
--------------------------------------------------------
Mario Jesmanowicz said:
George Smith said:
I own a lot of L glass amongst which is the 4.0L. You can get
fairly soft backgrounds at 4.0 but 2.8 will be better. Actually 1.2
is best (my 85mm). If you are interested in portraits with a soft
background get the 50mm 1,8 as well as the 4.0, pretty good set up.

One word of advice. The 4.0L is a 67mm filter size lens. You may
want to get a step up ring to 72mm or 77mm and buy your filters in
those higher sizes (not the uv you will have on normally but circ
polarizers etc.). That way you will have filters in the future that
fit on the more normal L lens sizes which are commonly 72 and 77.
That way you will not need 2 sets of all of your filters.
Mario Jesmanowicz said:
I want to get that 70-200mm L USM Canon Lens. There are two choices
one at F2.0 and one at F4.0. $1200 is little bit too much for me.
This will be my first lens toward D60 so I also have to get wider
angle like 28-70. I almost gave up on F2.8 but then I saw sigmas
for around $600 70-200 F2.8 and then I went to reviews and also saw
VERY HIGH marks for Canon's 70-200 F4.0. Everyone says it is the
same or sharper as Canon's F2.8 yet only costs $600. It is lighter
and smaller.

So here are my chocice

Would you go with 2.8 Sigma or F4.0 Canon ???
Or would you with ONLY 2.8 Canon and no other lenses for a year ???

Also Some poeople say that F4.0 is VERY SHARP. Would I still be
able to get portraits with it at F4.0 from around 10-15feet, you
know blurred background ???

Is F4.0 usable indoor at games or $600 more really justifies
upgrading for that one F stop. I also understand that F2.8 is
heavy. I do plan on walking with it a lot.

What do you recomend???
Click to expand...
--
GSmith

Create an image today that will make someone's day today.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top