« Impossible = Possible | Main | August Sander »

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Comments

Why does this lens cost so much more than its predecessor? Of course its optimized for digital, the old lenses just won’t do with massive mega-pixal cameras- or so they say. First the price of cameras doubles with digital and now the lenses too. I find my old Canon FD lenses better than my EOS ‘L’ Zooms, even the FD Zoom is impressive (70-210 f/4) in comparison- but then I’m just basing this at looking at my projected slides (Rollei Apogon f/2.4 HFT lens), so what do I know?

I have the F/4 IS version. It's the only zoom I have and it's a really nice lens. I'll get used to using it one of these days

I had the version 1 a couple of years ago. I sold it for more than I paid for it. Why did I hate it??? Because it was like carrying around a lead weight and after a couple of hours it was a life ruining experience. Terrific optic....but....not worth the pain to me.

I'm plenty happy with my "Mark I" 70-200/2.8 IS, but the Mark II does look like an improvement (mouse over the chart to see the Mark I results). No way I can afford the new version, unfortunately, which guess means I should just quit photography altogether.

That website I just linked (the-digital-picture.com) is quite handy, by the way, for anyone who wants to compare the relative sharpness of various Canon lenses at every aperture and focal length. It even includes teleconverters to help 'resolve' issues like "Which is sharper, the 200/2.8 prime + 2x teleconverter or the 100-400 zoom at 400mm"? (Answer: they're pretty close, with the zoom being perhaps a little sharper but also showing more CA in the mid-areas of the chart.)

Or you can feel good about shooting on a budget by comparing your $100 50/1.8 to the legendary $4000 300/2.8 IS.

Hours of fun for those like to study charts, not so much for others.

Lenses like this look very attractive: presumably rendered in Photoshop, floating in space, with no other objects to provide a sense of scale and no lens hood, camera or photographer attached.

Yet every time I consider buying a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, I just have to walk into a camera store and look at it in real life to quickly cure myself. I simply find it impossible to imagine walking around with such a weighty behemoth. I can see it in the studio, but then what do I need an f/2.8 lens for?

Still, it DOES look sexy as a virtual object...

Best,
Adam

P.S. Please no responses to this comment. I'm only half-serious and I know that these lenses are very versatile, used by a lot of photographers, etc.

And here I was thinking $1,900 was expensive for the ver. I...

Every time I see this, I can't help but think I should have bought the Mk. I version back when it was $1350. Sigh.

I've had the non IS version of that lens for many years. It is not only a stellar optic, but, it is a very versatile piece of kit.

This 2nd iteration of the IS version (a different optical formula than my EF 70-200/2.8L) must be One HECK of a Lens! It is US1200.00 more than the non-IS version...that is just about double the price! And yet this new one is in short supply while both previous versions are still available.

I guess my Dad was right - I should have paid more attention in school(or at least, showed-up every day)...because I just don't get it.

;~))

Cheers! Jay

My Tamron 70-200 f2.8 LD Di SP is equal to my friend's Canon but without the IS . I'm astounded at the image quality at 1/2 the price. All apertures, even slightly better wide open at 200mm .

I've owned the "Mark I" version of this lens for a few years now and it's amazing (I nicknamed it "Money"!) I have used the "Mark II" stabilized version and it's just as good if not better.

I can only imagine how nice this one is, but "imagine" will be the extent of my involvement because of the price and because what I have now does everything I need.

All those bemoaning the cost of newer lenses might pause to consider the fluctuating value of the US$.

By happy contrast, here in Australia photography equipment is generally getting cheaper and cheaper...

I love my 70-200mm f4, but find even it, too cumbersome for taking children's portraits (though it gets some use in weddings). The 2.8 is probably approaching the size of some of the babies I take photos of :)

I think Tamron makes fine alternatives to the Canon lenses, but what drives me crazy is that the zoom ring is opposite from Canon.

The thing that bothers me the most about the Tamron lens compared to the canon is it's focusing motor. Canon's is by far superior to Tamron's offerings.

A lens that size/weight is a permanent part of my kit (Nikon version). I don't find it a problem. My most common bag loading is the 24-70/2.8, 70-210/2.8, 85/1.8, Sigma 12-24. Oh, and SB-800 flash. Nikon D700 body. No, the bag isn't light, but it's okay on a good shoulder strap, and I can often put it down for a while. And of course the bag gets a lot lighter when the body and a lens are out in use.

Nikon recently brought out a new version, which is also much more expensive than the previous version. I had had the previous version for around a year at that point; sigh.

Of course with a Sony or Pentax body, the third-party versions are stabilized. . .

The comments to this entry are closed.