rod_white Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 EF 70-200MM F /2.8L & EF 24-70MM F2.8 Lreally worth that price???I am wondering if the price of these two lenses is truely justified. I will ultimately need them for professional use and want really high quality glass. Are there any independant labs that offer comparisons between say these and Sigmas? Has anyone else been in this delima? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcpoljak2003 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Not sure about a comparison to Sigma lenses, but I've had the 70-200 2.8 (non IS) for about a year and a half and I love it. It's sharp, with good contrast. It's heavy lugging around all day but I think it's well worth it. Just one mans opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 If you can give up the convenience of zooms you can build a nice set of primes (24/2.8,50/1.8,100/2,200/2.8L) for less money. The primes will perform better than the zooms too! If you have to use zooms then yes these are worth it, but consider the used market as well to save a bunch. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Keep reading Chasseur d'Images over the next few months (and the current issue) for some sophisticated computer based evaluations (using DXO Optics Pro) of lenses from the major manufacturers on different bodies. They already concluded that a 16-35 f/2.8 L looks very good on a 10D, but isn't worth it on a 1Ds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claude_littleton Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 www.photodo.com check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_van_hulle1 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Had a friend who had a Sigma 70-200/2.8, then bought the Tokina version and tried to sell me the Sigma. I tried both for about 10 minutes then went to buy a Canon. I don't care what anyone says, in all thngs, the Canon is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg M Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I will second Keith on that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Let's keep it rolling, I will third that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizensmith1664875108 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Are they worth the price? Depends on how large your disposible income is and how far up a diminishing returns curve you are willing to go. There are plenty of good alternatives if you don't mind making sacrifices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_eckelman Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I was in the same situation trying to decide on an indoor sports photography lens. I bit the bullet and bought the 70-200 2.8L IS. I've only had it for a couple weeks, but MAN what a difference from my trusty 75-300 IS lens. Focusing is faster, the lens is faster, the lens is MUCH sharper and it is much easier focusing by hand because the image is brighter. I wholeheartedly recommend the Canon 70-200L lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormfront Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Just got the 24-70mm f2.8L and it is awesome. It is very well built but plenty heavy (not easily hung around your neck off a 10D). I would recommend handling one yourself if possible before buying. <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml">Michael Reichman's take on it</a>. My next lens will be the 16-35mm 2.8L and then the 70-200mm f2.8L. 24mm on the 10D is just not wide enough. As for zoom vs. prime... that is your choice. On the weekend I was photographing a penguin colony and distance ranged from at my feet to a few meters away. I was on a beach, the wind was up, the surf breaking quite close by and I shudder to think what having to change between a few primes every few shots would have been like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 As my budget is limited I went primes like John. I have the 24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8 and 200/2.8. If I would have thought that zoom convenience is invaluable (and I don't, I had several zooms including two Ls) I'd surely get the 24-70/2.8 (or 16-35/2.8) + 70-200/2.8 IS. Worth it ? That's subjective. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerry_szarek Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Assuming you have a digital camera or are going that way, consider the 17-40F4L,70-200F4L and either the 50F1.4 or the 50F2.8 macro, I find shooting a 10D with 17-40F4L at high ASA's to be a non issue (yes I do use a copy of NeatImage to cleanup the noise). I prefer to save money and use the slow zoom's vs a fast zoom without IS. The only issue with Sigma's is compability with electronics, once the lens is stopped being produced they will no longer rechip it for you. Gerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_pearce Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 To some extent, I'm with Gerry. I use a 10D with a 17-40 f4L (allegedly sharper or at least as good as the 2.8) and a 70-200 f4L and am more than happy with the results - very sharp! The result from the 50mm 1.8 is also very nice. For less than half the price of the 2.8 versions I am happy to up the ISO to 200 or even 400 at which I find the noise acceptable. I don't have experience with the 70-200 2.8L IS, but guess the IS is nice to have if money is no object, but I would'nt lose sleep over the 1 stop. Good luck whatever, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor_hoyt1 Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 I went a slightly different route. I found a 28-70 L used for $750, in excellent condition. Then I bought a 17-40 L. So for about the same as a 24-70 I have a wider range, and pretty good glass. Ok, so there's more to carry, but I add my 70-200 f/4, and I have a pretty complete kit of zooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now