FinlandLive.Info - Finland Community |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| Photograph Corner Finland Photograph Corner |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Snow
is updating FinlandLive
|
I would like to buy a Telezoom and I was wondering if somebody has experience with the Canon 70-200 L 2.8 or 4 without IS?
Which one has the better picture quality? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||
|
Humppaporo
has no status.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Holland
Posts: 8
|
The 2.8 L is far better than the 4. But the question is, do you really need it? The 2.8 L is very expensive and very heavy, and not really handy to drag along on your holidays (believe me, i know, i did it :P) The 2.8 L needs less light, because of the big diafragma, that is why you can also take pictures in rather dark or difficult circumstances. The stabiliser helps this even a little more. Also for this lens there is a moment that you need flashlight, no lens is as great as our own eyes.
The 4 is very good, and suitable for all purposes, besides the biggest challenges (takes pics of bands in quite dark circumstances, fast moving things in dark weather). (the pictures on my website are mostly made with the 2.8 L. Feel Free Foto's - Series) and more technical info, and tests you could find on fredmiranda.com: Specialized in Digital Cameras, Photoshop Plugins, Actions and Digital Darkroom good luck with your choice! |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
#4 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||
|
Humppaporo
has no status.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Holland
Posts: 8
|
I can hardly imagine anything sharper than the 2.8 L. Canon lenses are always very good though. But at the website i mentioned before there must be some tests. If you are going to take pics under good light circumstances, i would choose the 4 Lens, and use the rest of the money for something else
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Snow
is updating FinlandLive
|
I think the 2.8 is really good if you want to have a blurred background. I think I will stick with the 4 Lens as I am anyway shooting outside and save some money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||
|
Humppaporo
has no status.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Holland
Posts: 8
|
Even without the 2.8 diafragma you have a blurred background very easily, it is because of the focal length. You can avoid that only a little by using a small lens opening, like 11 or higher. Btw. most lenses are at their sharpest around the middle setting of their diafragma range.
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| 2.8, 70-200, canon, lens |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|