mcarterbrown.com  

Plugged in Online Gaming, and Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-23-2012, 04:27 PM   #11 (permalink)
Devil Dog
 
ballyhoo33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Des Moines, IA
Send a message via AIM to ballyhoo33 Send a message via MSN to ballyhoo33

I shot many, many paintball events with the lowly 70-200 f4 non-IS lens. Since I was shooting outdoors, lighting wasn't typically an issue. That lens produced great photos, very sharp and great colors. I moved up to the 2.8 non-IS version a few years ago. Overall the lens was faster but I didn't see any real difference in image quality. I've been using the 2.8 IS II version for the past year and there is an overall improvement with this lens from the other versions. It's fast, doesn't hunt, allows hand-holding down to 1/30 or better without losing IQ, and the images pop. The IS on the newer version wouldn't neccessarily be needed during daytime photography, espceially during an outdoor event during the day.

I've also used a 24-70 2.8 and 300 F4 IS for paintball on a second body, but the 70-200 was primairily used during action.
ballyhoo33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 04:45 PM   #12 (permalink)
Straight 6 DID Bust!
 
Kermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Pace, FL

Quote:
Originally Posted by ballyhoo33 View Post
I shot many, many paintball events with the lowly 70-200 f4 non-IS lens. Since I was shooting outdoors, lighting wasn't typically an issue. That lens produced great photos, very sharp and great colors. I moved up to the 2.8 non-IS version a few years ago. Overall the lens was faster but I didn't see any real difference in image quality. I've been using the 2.8 IS II version for the past year and there is an overall improvement with this lens from the other versions. It's fast, doesn't hunt, allows hand-holding down to 1/30 or better without losing IQ, and the images pop. The IS on the newer version wouldn't neccessarily be needed during daytime photography, espceially during an outdoor event during the day.

I've also used a 24-70 2.8 and 300 F4 IS for paintball on a second body, but the 70-200 was primairily used during action.
Not trying to hijack the thread here, but would you suggest spending the extra $$$ on the 70-200 f2.8 over the f4?
Kermit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 04:57 PM   #13 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Venge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Central Kentucky

Having shot paintball for years with various lenses.I now rarely take anything outta my bag other that my Nikon 2.8 70-200mm.
Venge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 05:15 PM   #14 (permalink)
Devil Dog
 
ballyhoo33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Des Moines, IA
Send a message via AIM to ballyhoo33 Send a message via MSN to ballyhoo33

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigballa View Post
Not trying to hijack the thread here, but would you suggest spending the extra $$$ on the 70-200 f2.8 over the f4?
I thoroughly enjoyed the photos made from the F4 non-IS version. For $500 (used), it's an awesome lens. Knowing and working around it's limitations: hunts in low light, camera shake with low shutter speed, difficulties with converters, etc., helps the user. I used this lens for portraits, weddings, sporting events, and even landscapes and was always happy with the results. It's probalby Canon's most under-valued L lens only because it's bigger brothers steal the spot-light due to their popularity.

If you need 2.8 on a budget with this focal reange, then the 2.8 non-IS version is a good choice. It's considerably larger than the F4 version. Also take into consideration that for about the same price the F4 IS version can be purchased used. This version is going to give you a couple additional stops with the IS. It's image quality is also excellent, it's fast, and lightweight. I've rented it and enjoyed it.

If I had $1,000 and was in the market for a 70-200 I probably rank it as follows:

70-200 F4 IS
70-200 F4 non-IS and another lens or flash
70-200 2.8 non-IS

It wasn't easy to rank since all three are great lenses. In fact, all of Canon's 70-200 lenses make great images. It comes down to wanting/needing 2.8 vs 4.0 and IS vs non-IS.
ballyhoo33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 05:53 PM   #15 (permalink)
Dive Dive Dive
 
worrptangl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Back in Da 808

Fan of EMR
CCM Fan
It's an older sigma but it's not bad.


Forsale: (2) Sigma lens for Canon users.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talfuchre View Post
I will lock this damned thread up if anyone posts that disgusting picture I saw once.
It like the CCM version of Two Girls One Cup.
I will ban folks.... I swear.
TF

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/f...-feedback.html
worrptangl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  mcarterbrown.com » General » Off-Topic » Plugged in

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC