70-200 IS 2.8L or 4 L

[marcogarrone]

Madhavi, if by street photography you mean the occasional portrait but also taking a snap at the fancy car passing by, I agree that the 70-200 is too narrow a lens. personally I have the f4IS and it works beautifully, I chose it because that extra stop was not worth the 500 � difference. Its a marvellous lens for shooting details, indoor, performancess and so on. for street photography I would take the 24-105, or if you are low on budget (like me) the 28-135 IS. Average quality, but the focal length you need on the street. Cheers

Marco

[lilserenity]

FWIW, I have the 70-200 f/4L (non IS) on my Canon EOS 3 which is by no means an inconspicuous camera -- size and a mirror slap that puts a rifle to shame (!) -- and it is a fantastic lens. Perfect for having with you all day if not necessary always on the camera.

 

The f4/L is also I think the least expensive L lens out there but for portraits it's a gem, smooth gorgeous bokeh for portraiture and very easy to work with due to its lightweight.

 

IMHO, I would get the 70-200 f4/L over the 70-200 f/2.8 and with what you've saved invest in a couple of decent primes for your street work if you haven't got them already. I find the 35mm aspect very good but some people swear by 50mm! That said, on a APS-C sensor you'd need something like the 20mm or 24mm to get close to the approximate 35mm FF aspect.

 

Personally I use a manual focus 35mm f/2 super multi-coated takumar Pentax lens on my EOS 3. It's mounted on an M42 adapter but it's a joy to work with so this is another idea, as even though USM is amazingly quiet, manual focus is more so!

 

Good luck in whatever you decide is right for you :-)

[lowfatgraphics]

I'd go with a 2.8 without IS. 4L is just to slow, its sharp, but slow. but it all depends on what your going for in terms of style of your pictures. even then the 2.8 is probably better because you can stop down. 4l is supposedly faster but eh its like under a magnifying glass if you ask me.

 

Which ever you get tho, you'll be happy!

[mark u]

Neither. Get a selection of fast primes instead - e.g. Sigma 30 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2, 135 f/2.

[richard_wang10]

tien pham

 

Cal Civil Code Section 1709 reads

 

1709. One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him

to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage

which he thereby suffers.

 

There are no subsections.

 

I'm interested if you have a proper citation.

[sass]

I'd go for the 2.8 with IS. I had the 70-200/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8L IS USM and my friends have the 70-200/4L IS USM and there is no doubt. When the light is fading, who keeps on photographing. The one with the 2.8-aperture. It is that simple. The f/4 might be sharper, but we're talking pixelpeeping here.

[dave404]

I like the 70-200 2.8 at weddings and other events where the 2.8 is a must. Sports in a stadium at night the 2.8 is also a must. I use it everywhere including hiking where the weight seem to increase with each step. Buy good straps, backpacks and other stuff. If I was rich I would have both lenses so I will labor on.

[owen_lars]

>The statutes actually reads that one is liable for criminal trespass when the defendant knowingly enters the property of another without

permission to take a picture, recording, or video when the plaintiff is engaged in personal or familial activities.

 

>It says nothing about telephoto lenses.

 

Richard, Bob is correct. You need to keep reading. You quoted section a, read section b.

[William Michael]

I think a telephoto lens is a visual enhancing device.

 

I also think that post production enhancement and or enlargement of an image taken with a normal FoV lens is also visually enhancing using a device.

 

I therefore think the Statute 1708.8.(b) in question, addresses more than just the use of telephoto lenses in regard to (photographic) constructive invasion of privacy, without actual physical trespass being committed.

 

But I ain`t no lawyer, so that`s just a lay opinion, not legal advice.

 

WW

[tien_pham]

@ Richard

 

I was kidding! I found interesting that there is a LAW in the US that forbids one, even a paparazzi, to use a certain lens. They can forbid, prevent, even execute a paparazzi for coming too close or for creating harzardous enironment, but not on his lens of choice. Can they use "the right to bear arms" to defend themself? :-))

 

Anyway, sorry if this really bothers you.

[William Michael]

@ Tien Pham:

 

 

Well that is certainly convoluted humour . . . I was actually thinking about your comment quite a lot.

 

 

I had noticed the :-)) big grin, but I couldn`t work out what you were meaning.

 

 

Thanks for explaining it.

 

 

WW

[chrisjb]

When a big white is pointed in the area I live, it gets spotted quickly, folks try to avoid and have suspicious unnatural expressions. Some walk up to you and demand to know what you are up to. I`d agree primes would be more suited for portrait, candids and street work, 35/50/85/135 and if must 200mm, all lighter less seen and far superior in low light :)

 

My 02 cents

[zafar1]

The California code reads:

 

>> physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under

>> circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy,

 

The key words are "reasonable expectation of privacy". The expectation of "reasonable privacy" would not apply to people walking on the street, sitting in cafe, shopping, etc.. Hence its application to street photography is not correct (unless someone is standing on the street and shooting in the house through window! ). I have read some debate about the expectation of privacy for people in a car, so that maybe a gray area.