Canon 70-200 L f2.8 is it worth it ? | Thread profile

Well the answer I guess is yes But is it worth paying the extra over the 70-200 f4 ? I know the f2.8 is bigger and heavier, and it is almost double the price, is it worth double the price for extra stops ? Im not bothered about IS, as most of the stuff I shoot is moving anyway I currently have a Sigma 70-300 APO DG, which I will sell should I get the L glass, but I may miss...

Quote: Originally Posted by Sonic' But is it worth paying the extra over the 70-200 f4 ? Personal choice really - depends on what you're doing and in what light levels. I bought the f2.8 IS - because I knew I'd always regret it if I bought the f4 or non-IS and would most likely end up upgrading sooner or later ...

we moved from the sigma 70 - 300 to the 100-400L there is a huge difference, If your doing any wildlife stuff I would try and stretch the budget a bit as the 400 is a cracking lens for walk about shooting Rich

Dont do any wildlife stuff Mostly moon shots, gig photography etc, and some portrait stuff I doubt the 100-400 would be much good for portaits due to the reach, but I do have a 50mm f1.4 and 28-105 Mk II

100-400 fine fro the moon (with extenders) but do you shoot enough to justify £1000? Gigs and portraits - depending on how close you are at the gigs a 70-200 f2.8would be useful. As for portraits, you may get away with what you've got, although again the 70-200 would be good. Don't think "700-200 F2.8 or 100-400" as they are very different beasts for different applications. I'd have...

Cheers DD I know I dont shoot enough to justify the price tag of a 100-400 I know the f2.8 at gigs would definately be useful, and yes the 70-200 would be handy for portraits I like the reach of my Sigma 70-300 and invariably use that the most partly because of the reach, although camera shake sets in on full reach due to not being able to get a high enough shutter speed because ...

i could be interested in the 70-300 sigma if you wont to sell it

How many moon shots can you take before getting bored ? From what you describe you'd be better off with the 70-200 f2.8 - not only does it allow a faster shutter in low light, but it will also focus better and faster in low light - is that important ?

Yes Alistair I know, taking moon shots is fun for a while, but then it does get a bit boring I guess I would get a lot more use out of the 70-200 f2.8 and yes the Sigma would be sold for a reasonable price Im guessing if I went down the f2.8 route I would have to get the Canon TC though, although there isnt supposed to be a lot in it Also yes the faster focussing and low ...

Quote: Originally Posted by Devildog 100-400 fine fro the moon (with extenders) but do you shoot enough to justify £1000? Gigs and portraits - depending on how close you are at the gigs a 70-200 f2.8would be useful. As for portraits, you may get away with what you've got, although again the 70-200 would be good. Don't think...