mmm LLLLLLLLLLL (joined the club)

olv

olv

olv

Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2005
Posts
5,295
Location
london
CRW_2331s.jpg


Exciting day, I joined the L club :D so pleased with it. not had chance to give it a decent test yet, just fired off a couple of shots in the kitchen with my 430EX that arrived with it. colours are great and it looks so sharp.

i'll post some proper shots with it soon.
 
I WOOT!

I think I will have one early next year if I'm a good boy. Post some samples!
 
My lens shopping list is too big :( But then again, it seems that I don't really find I need length when I go out. It's only when I try them I think "ooooo, what I could do with this". Weird. Still, the 70-200 is probably first on the list :(
 
That was my first L as well. Strangely enough its turned out to be my least used lens... Shame really. I keep trying to use it but its either not long enough, or my 85mm f1.8 works out better...

It is amazing quality though!
 
Have to say that I'm surprised how much I use mine. I find it great for a combination of normal and portrait shots. Lovely to use on a regular basis. Enjoy.
 
I think the 70-200 is perfect for portrait shots, especially if you want a shallow depth of field or are using a full frame camera.

I will be buying the F4 IS version next year when the price reduces a bit.
 
Is there much difference in image quality between the f2.8 vs f4 apart from 1 can shoot better at low light and different dof?

and is it really worth the near £800? or better to go for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8?

I've used the Sigma 70-200 on the Nikon and found it very sharp but It can hunt sometimes and having got myself 17-40L I'm loving the silent/fast focus.
 
I've got the 70-200 F2.8 IS. It is very nice indeed. Great on full frame as its very usable. Image quality is spot on. Havent tried the F4 so cant comment but I think its pretty realitic to say that the f2.8 is a better lens (surely it has to be to justify its cost!?)
 
morgan said:
Havent tried the F4 so cant comment but I think its pretty realitic to say that the f2.8 is a better lens (surely it has to be to justify its cost!?)
Click to expand...
The higher cost of the 2.8 is down to the wider aperture.
I think it's doubtful that image quality is noticeably better on the 2.8 over the F4.
 
If you check thre resolution charts the F4 version is marginally sharper through the range.

It really is a gem of a lens.
 
I was looking into the Non IS version of the 70-200 f2.8 but if you guys think the f4 version is cool then that will give me the choice of buying 70-200 F4 and 85mm f1.8.

Need to start saving! :o

Edit: damn she is huge XXXX
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom