One vs the other

New_Zealand

New_Zealand

Veteran
Yesterday I saw a guy taking photos with Mkiii and 70-200 2.8. He let me check out his camera and lens. He was saying that the new lens ($2300) has a few more bells but not really worth the great jump in price. He paid around $1300 for his lens. He only uses his camera for photos and wasn't interested in the video part of the camera.

Anyway after checking out both camera and that lens I went onto Amazon to check on prices. I found that the prices really jump all over the place for some of the same camera lens unless I'm missing something?

The first lens is what he had and the other is a f/4l and almost half of the price. So in all honestly for VIDEO which lens would be best on the MkIII? He of course wasn't able to give me an answer.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR $1300
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR $700

I have decided that I will get one Zoom lens and this is more then likely what I will get and two Prime lenses but not sure which two yet. Would like to get one for interior shots and the other for exterior shots. What I do like about the Zoom is if I change my mind on the talent distance for frame blocking I can easily adjust the zoom to block the shot I need where with the prime I either have to move the talent or move my camera setup which always takes time to reset.
 
I couldn't live without the 2.8 version. Having said that, I shoot a lot of weddings where you need all the light you can get. This lens is great for shooting speeches, even without lights, and is also great for getting reaction shots of people across the room. With the f/4 version I would need to add lights or bump the ISO up past what I consider usable.

Your needs will obviously differ to mine, though.
 
Hang on... Before you pull the trigger, there's a couple different versions of this lens. Search B&H Photo to see. From memory, there's at least:

f/4
f/2/8
f/2.8 IS
f/2.8 IS version II

For video, I don't think you should go lower than f/2.8 IS. The extra stop of light makes a big difference (especially for things like weddings; even then, it's not comfortably fast enough). The IS makes a huge difference. (Though this depends, of course, on your project and personal style, etc, and what sort of stabilisation devices you'll be using with the lenses, and how much shake you can take.)

Google for the differences between version I and version II. I think it's that version II is sharper and has slightly smaller minimum focus distance (which is also a good thing -- can be extremely annoying to use version I in cramped interiors). Whether it's worth the extra money... up to you.
 
actually, theres one more, and it's the one I'd get:

f/4
f/4 IS
f/2/8
f/2.8 IS
f/2.8 IS version II

(the f/2.8L IS first version is only second-hand now)

Check out this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...r-70-200mm-2-8-MarkII-lens-to-solve-my-Shoots

btw, f/4L non-IS is cheaper, but I'd get the IS version, it's a bit sharper, nearly as much as the bigger brothers:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2
 
70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark I. Price range between $1,200-$1,500. Hands down the lens you need to get if you're going to choose within that list.
 
Ive got the 2.8 and the 4 (non IS which I got for about $400 used)

Hate schlepping the 2.8 around and always pick the 4

If it gets dark id go for my 85/2

Of course a very specific need would make me take the bigger one

S
 
I had the earlier 70-200 and got rid of it after seeing some comparisons to the more recent version, because the newer version is noticeably sharper (for what it's worth.)
 
I have the 70-200 L f/4 IS and it's been an incredible lens for me. It's almost half the weight and half the cost of the f/2.8 II with nearly the identical image. A 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/2 are a much more cost effective way to get even a bit more low light ability. The combo of the 70-200 L f/4 IS and a 50 f/1.4 is much more cost effective for my needs in both $ and effort to lug around :)

Cheers,
Pete
 
The 24-70 L has chromatic fringing when images are backlit and it's no where near as sharp as my 70-200 f/4 L IS. A great range of focal lengths, great bokeh, color and contrast, but it's just a tad expensive for the image quality vs. other options. A 24-105 L IS is a much better bet with a fast 50 for low light. The 24-105 L is longer range, much sharper and the IS is really good. Especially for hand held work.

Cheers,
Pete
 
Thanks - Trying to get my lens setup and bought before I get my mkiii in. So the package should be 24-105 L IS and a good 50mm 1.4? The Mkiii has a 24-105 in a kit package. It is about $100 saving when you buy it with the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top