WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   -   Lense help (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=289268)

emay 03-06-2006 7:25 AM

Hey all, I frequent the forums quite often and simply do so to absorb information. I'm torn in discussion about the canon IS lenses. <BR> <BR>I'm about to drop the coin and need to make sure I'm not going beyond what I'll use. I do consider it wasting money if I don't use an item to it's full potential. <BR> <BR>So here's my deal, I'm stuck deciding between the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and 70-200mm f/2.8L USM EF Lens. <BR> <BR>Obviously the lense will be mainly for wakeboarding photos from within the tow boat and likely some chase boat shots. With not buying IS, and being very new to the photography hobby, am I shorting myself a ton? <BR> <BR>Any help is much appreciated. <BR> <BR>E

suckbuthavefun 03-06-2006 9:17 AM

Let me start with, I'm no expert. <BR> <BR>If it is mainly for wakeboarding, you shouldn't need the IS as most of the times you will have decent light and a fast shutter. <BR> <BR>If it is mainly for wakeboarding, you may also look at the f/4 as it is ALOT cheaper. <BR> <BR>I have the f/4 and love it for wakeboarding. I don't love it for shooting pics of the kids playing soccer when it is overcast. <BR> <BR>So, if you can afford it, go for it. But think about the f/4 and picking up another lens for another purpose if all its going to be used for is wakeboarding. <BR> <BR>Tim

emay 03-06-2006 9:37 AM

I was looking at the F4 as well.. sort of just got caught up in the 2.8 at some point and have been kind of set on it for some reason. <BR> <BR>The cost as yuo mentioned is far cheaper and tat does open up a possibility for a real nice walk around lense.

shutupandboard 03-06-2006 9:44 AM

I would LOVE to have the 2.8 instead of the f4. I don't think I would need it so much for boarding, but other things yes all the time.

ladyboarder 03-06-2006 3:06 PM

I had the f4 for a while at the end of the summer last year. If you are using it mostly for wakeboarding or other outdoor, bright and sunny type stuff, you'll never need the f2.8. I used my f4 when we went wakeboarding and that was pretty much it. In the fall I decided I wanted to shoot some basketball and soccer, so I upgraded to the f2.8. <BR>Bottom line... outdoor bright and sunny stuff... don't need a 2.8 and really don't need the IS. Indoor or low light sports, get the 2.8, indoor portraits or other slow shutter speed stuff, get the IS. My 2.8 is not the IS, since I shoot 90% sports and my shutter never really falls low enough for IS to matter, if it does, I have a tripod. <BR>On the other hand... if you have the money go for the big boy and never have lens envy! <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0> <BR>Later <BR>Tiff

richd 03-06-2006 7:36 PM

Where IS helps is when you need to stop down (decrease your aperture) in low light situations and shoot handheld at very slow shutter speeds. My advice is: if you don't know why you would need IS you probably don't need it. While I would not talk anyone out of investing in a 70-200 f2.8L IS it does tie up a lot more $ for a feature you may never need.

emay 03-07-2006 10:07 AM

Decided to run with the 2.8L USM. Thanks for the input above, everything helped in some way.

emay 03-08-2006 10:33 AM

Below I have a link for a Sigma 2.8 dg lense. As you will see the price reads $1999.00 - I'm thoroughly confused because googling or price grabbing the same info I draw price ranges of 650 to 900 roughly. <BR> <BR>Called Express Camera to see what the deal was and they said this lense released two weeks ago and is not available in the US yet. How in the world do I verify this? I called Sigma USA and they are clueless to a new release, they state they are only aware of the 2.8 that released 5 months back. <BR> <BR>Here's the link: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=65288&amp;start=1" target="_blank">http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=65288&amp;start=1</a> <BR> <BR>Anyone got the 411? <BR> <BR>

suckbuthavefun 03-08-2006 11:03 AM

I would take what express says with a grain of salt. <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1805.html" target="_blank">http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1805.html</a>

richd 03-08-2006 5:56 PM

Here is the new sigma: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022610sigma70200.asp" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022610sigma70200.asp</a> <BR> <BR>All Sigma did was add some macro capability. either way (new or original) this lens should not be over a grand.

emay 03-09-2006 8:56 AM

Tim, great find, I'll be using this site to track numerous things going forward. <BR> <BR>Rich, thanks for tracking down the review. I saw the press releases in my research, but nothing like your find.
