ChapelThrill23
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,166
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 844
I used to have an 80-200 2.8D. The image quality was excellent and the lens was well made and fun to use but I found that I left it at home a lot in situations where the focal range would be useful because I hated hauling around the weight. It is a brick.
Because of that I became interested in the 70-200/4. I rented one last year and really liked it and finally purchased one this fall. I have not been disappointed. The lens is light, fairly compact, extremely sharp, has great color and contrast, focuses quickly, has good image stabilization, and does a good job with out of focus areas. It also handles really well. The focusing and zoom rings are very well damped. I find myself carrying it a lot more than I ever carried the 80-200 and have found it to be a pleasure in situations where I am carrying the camera for hours on end. The results have been extremely good. The lens is absolutely top drawer and I recommend it. It is great for landscapes and for good light photography of all kinds.
I could have easily afforded a 70-200 2.8 but those hold no appeal for me as they weigh even more than the 80-200 I often left at home. For some people that extra stop is vital but it isn't for how I use a lens in that range. I generally need that range outside and in decent light and with modern sensors, being an f4 lens really doesn't limit me in terms of getting the shutter speeds I need. I use glass that is faster than f 2.8 indoors anyway and generally use a focal length below 50mm inside because I don't shoot inside in many places where being able to go up to 200mm is useful. Were I an indoor sports or wedding shooter I'd want that extra speed in that focal range but I don't do either thing. So far as control over out of focus areas, there really isn't as big of a difference as some people might think between a 200mm lens at f4 and f2.8. I'm not a fan of Ken Rockwell but his website has some examples that show how little difference it makes to DOF. So for me the tradeoff of going from f2.8 to f4 is absolutely worth it because of the lighter weight. Having just spent five hours with the f4 around my neck this weekend at a park, I can more than attest to the fact that the size makes a difference. I might sacrifice f 2.8 but I don't sacrifice a thing in terms of image quality at the aperatures that the 4 can deliver.
Because of that I became interested in the 70-200/4. I rented one last year and really liked it and finally purchased one this fall. I have not been disappointed. The lens is light, fairly compact, extremely sharp, has great color and contrast, focuses quickly, has good image stabilization, and does a good job with out of focus areas. It also handles really well. The focusing and zoom rings are very well damped. I find myself carrying it a lot more than I ever carried the 80-200 and have found it to be a pleasure in situations where I am carrying the camera for hours on end. The results have been extremely good. The lens is absolutely top drawer and I recommend it. It is great for landscapes and for good light photography of all kinds.
I could have easily afforded a 70-200 2.8 but those hold no appeal for me as they weigh even more than the 80-200 I often left at home. For some people that extra stop is vital but it isn't for how I use a lens in that range. I generally need that range outside and in decent light and with modern sensors, being an f4 lens really doesn't limit me in terms of getting the shutter speeds I need. I use glass that is faster than f 2.8 indoors anyway and generally use a focal length below 50mm inside because I don't shoot inside in many places where being able to go up to 200mm is useful. Were I an indoor sports or wedding shooter I'd want that extra speed in that focal range but I don't do either thing. So far as control over out of focus areas, there really isn't as big of a difference as some people might think between a 200mm lens at f4 and f2.8. I'm not a fan of Ken Rockwell but his website has some examples that show how little difference it makes to DOF. So for me the tradeoff of going from f2.8 to f4 is absolutely worth it because of the lighter weight. Having just spent five hours with the f4 around my neck this weekend at a park, I can more than attest to the fact that the size makes a difference. I might sacrifice f 2.8 but I don't sacrifice a thing in terms of image quality at the aperatures that the 4 can deliver.
