Canon 70-200mm IS II, my first L lens

[jmorian]

<p>I just wanted to share my experience with other beginners. I have been an amateur hobbyist for many years. Three years ago I bought my first DSLR, a Rebel XSi and started learning. I read everything I could about f stops, aperture, focusing, lighting, shutter speeds. On this site I read about how to shoot certain subjects better and which lenses to use for which circumstances. All have made me better than I was. When I finally decided to get serious about lenses, I sought input from photo.net members on different lenses and camera bodies. Did I need a better body or better glass? Overwhelmingly the response was better glass.<br>

I read reviews, I researched, then researched some more. I knew that what I wanted was a 70-200mm. I shoot a lot of sports of my daughter's teams. I knew I needed f2.8 as I am often in a basketball gym or dimly lit soccer field. What I couldn't decide was whether the difference in $$ was REALLY worth it to make the jump to my first L lens. I had read so much about the difference in quality and couldn't believe there could be that much difference. I was leaning toward a new Sigma 70-200 OS. After all, new is always better, right?? Photo.net experienced users convinced me otherwise and I finally pulled the trigger and bought a used Canon 70-200mm IS II. I could not believe I was spending this amount of money on JUST THE LENS and it wasn't even new! However, I have to tell you that I am forever changed and do not regret even one bit spending the extra to get the Canon L version. My daughters that know nothing about photography can take a perfect, crisp picture with this lens. It puts all the kit lenses, etc. to shame. If you can only choose one lens, make it an L(there are a number to choose from depending on your needs) and save yourself all the money you would've spent trying to get the "good" picture with other lenses. </p>

[bobcossar]

<p>The high price.....The Thin Red Line......the "L".......can make your pictures look much better. But are they <em>really?</em> 8 years ago I purchesed a Canon 10 D with the kit 18-55. After a time I yielded to the red-line-image and bought an L lens to rplace the kit lens.<br /> <strong>Much Better Pictures</strong> I decided.....until I set up some straight up head-to-head comparison tests.<br /> Then I found that there was much less difference than I had expected, and for most shooting, no differences at all except build quality.....<br /> Now I have moved away from Canon entirely....(except for an elph)......and pay more attention to how i use the gear I have rather than becoming swayed by colored lines, single letter designations, etc.<br /> Photography has never been better....Regards, Robert</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>A lens that takes "perfect" pictures. We would love to see some, please post some in your portfolio. </p>

<p>Are the improvements due to quality, or because the lens is better in low light situations? How much better is it compared your cheap lens in good light?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>While a good lens can make a serious difference, putting it down to being an "L" is a bit too simple. The real lesson here is: understand your needs well, pick your budget and then check for the best you can find balancing those 2. In this case, you came out with a f/2.8 L zoom. It could also have been the 85 f/1.8 (which isn't L, but for all I've read puts a lot of lenses to shame), or the kitlens (used for landscapes it can certainly deliver).... The deal is getting the right tool for the job. So, judge on that, not on some letter and a lick of red paint.</p>

<p><em>(An L lens would won't do my photography any good. It won't mount on my camera.)</em></p>

[jcuknz]

<p>If the L lens made you more confident and you took better photos then it was worth the extra ...it wouldn't fit on the camera I use most though I probably could use it on the camera I rarely if ever use :-)</p>

[jmorian]

<p>Good points all. I started with the kit lens, then got a 55-250mm because I needed zoom. When I discovered that I also needed low light, I added the 85mm f/1.8. after awhile of shooting I learned that what really needed was low light AND zoom. I was frustrated trying to get that soccer shot when it was getting dark and my 55-250 couldn't go past f/4. I also found myself at the end of the gym with my 85mm missing some shots because I didn't have reach I needed. So I would say it really is about knowing what, or how, you shoot as you say Wouter. Will post some pics when I get time to upload :-)</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I would add for those frustrated becuase trhey cannot cope with light levels below their equipment's capabilities to check out what they can achieve in editing by the selective raising of dark tones with the levels and curves tools. In such situations where I cannot get the 'correct' exposure I choose an exposure that gets the sharp subject and raise in editing.<br>

Such approach does not appease the purists with their pre-occupation with technicalities, color fidelity noise etc, but you get the sharp shot of the occasion.<br>

Though this approach is more applicable to the P&S and bridge camera than the modern DSLR with ISO capabilites far superior. </p><div></div>

[bobcossar]

<p>JC.....don't knock the purists. The purists are the people you want to do the work that matters most to you in your life. Your doctor, dentist, policeman, accountant, cook, pharmacist, fireman.....etc. ad nauseum are ALL people you want and need to be purists.<br>

The purists are those who engage the learning curve with passion and commitment... to bring you the perfection you want....even need sometimes.<br>

So you don't knock the purists.....and maybe they won't comment on you, or your work. </p>