70-200L or 200L

I need a tele lense and was wondering if i should get the 70-200L

F2.8 IS or the 200 f2.8 L. I don't want weight so I was thinking of

the 200L but on the other hand I sometimes do press conference work

and I want the 70-200.

 

Do you guys find 70-200L heavy to carry? Which will you get and

which is worth investing?

I sold my 200/2.8 and got a 70-200/2.8 and it was a good decision. Yes, the 70-200/2.8's

are heavy, but I carry mine always - it's just too useful for PJ work. Everyone I know sings the

praises of the 200/2.8 - which is a wonderful lens - but uses the zoom, which is also a great

lens.

 

-b

I have the 70-200 F2.8 IS and I think that it is a great lens that produces some very nice images. The variation in focal length will probably come in handy for you too.

I use this lens on a regular basis and sometimes for up to five hours during a shoot. It is heavy but I don't mind and I just ensure that I eat my wheaties before I head out with it.

Too bad we can't have everything.

 

The 70-200L F4 would be the answer but i guess you want a faster lens.

 

The other way would be to get the 200L and a shorter lens for press conference (50, 85 or 100 but 50 is the smallest/fastest)

The 70-200/2.8 IS is hella heavy, but the IS and zooming ablity worht it to me. Bite the bullet and go for it.

I just sold my 70-200/4L and purchased a 200/2.8L. I'm very pleased with my decision as the extra inch in length on the zoom meant that I needed to carry a larger bag. I would never consider the f/2.8 zoom in this range because I strongly prefer smaller lenses. If you are paid to get the shot, you might want to make sure you get the shot and the zoom is probably your best bet. Then again, if you're typically at the long end of the zoom (like I was when using the 70-200), you won't find too many complaining about the 200/2.8L.

I sold my 70-200/4 and bought 85/1.8 + 200/2.8. Optically I find them much better. They are also shorter and painted black so if you don't like to draw attention to yourself, that's a blessing. Obviously, I have no regrets.

 

I would not replace them with non IS 70-200 but if I could find a good deal on 70-200/2.8 IS I'd consider it.

 

Weight is individual. While these primes are A LOT lighter than the IS zoom, I had no problems with the 300/4 IS which is almost as heavy. Check this out in the store and see if YOU think it's heavy.

 

HTH.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I'm waiting for a 1.4x extender to use with the 135 f:2L lens. It's smaller, weighs less and in the middle of what would be the zoom's range, I'll have an extra stop.

Both lesnes are excellent and worth the investment!

 

You probably should go rent a 70-200L IS or at least go to a local store to try it. It's heavy at 3.5 lb. But still handhold-able for some people and not for the others. Only you can tell whether it is too heavy for you.

 

If weight is no problem and you don't care people watching you with a very big white lens, I'd suggest simply go buy the zoom. It is just too useful, especially the IS. I think it's worth all the extra dollars you pay for it and is a very good investment.

 

If you are a PJ, go and buy the zoom.

 

If you are not the above, then you are probably like me where the zoom is too heavy.

 

I have the 200L and it's a great lens. The images from it make me "Wow!" so many times!

 

It's also very versatile. It's a great head and shoulder portrait lens by itself. Add a extension tube, it's a great macro lens. Put on a 20D (or any 1.6x camera body), it is a 320mm f/2.8 lens, very good for nature and zoo. Add a 1.4TC, you get 448mm at f/4, still great for bird. And you will enjoy it's relative light weight. (It's one pound lighter than 300 f/4.)

 

The only problem is it is not a zoom (so you see the problem loop back.) That's when you can fill in 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2 etc. All great primes.

 

But sometime you may still miss a zoom.

 

Eric.