I recently wrote about whether to buy the Canon 70-200 f/4.0 L, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L lens or the Sigma/Tamron equivalent…


I finally decided on the Canon f/2.8…

I have discussed this with so many people over the past 6-7 months… Which lens should I buy and do I even need a lens with that big a hole through it…

I started out renting the two Canon lenses for a couple of days to try them out in situations where I planned to use ‘em.

My first shoot with the lenses was at a local football game using some of the advice I had gathered on sportsshooter.com, youtube, and so on..

When coming from a zoom lens with a maximum aperture of f/4.0 on the short end of the focal length, using the f/2.8 is like being let out of a dark room that you’ve apparently been held in all your photographic life..

The shutter speed you’re able achieve is unfathomable.

I shot the game in broad daylight and found that when shooting at f/2.8 with that much light, you actually needed either a camera with a faster shutter, preferably 1/8000, or the ability to choose an ISO setting below the normal 100 ISO.

I then tried using the f/4.0, the smaller sibling in the lineup, and what a disappointment compared to the f/2.8.

Even though it’s not nearly as heavy as the f/2.8, this still does not make up for the slower shutter speeds you’re gonna be able to achieve with this lens. Oh sure in broad daylight every lens on the block will give you the shutter speeds you want, but if it gets slightly overcast, the shutter speeds goes south real fast.

Some people try to convince them self and others that the weight issue with the f/2.8 is actually a good thing; that the lens sits better in your hands when shooting with it of the tripod because of the fact that it will sit so firmly in your hands… This might be true, but let me just tell you that this lens really is heavy and that handholding it over a longer period of time will make you wish you had opted for the cheaper and lighter f/4.0.

After the game I tried using the lens for some portraits at home and again the faster lens kicked ass…

This test showed me two things.

One: that I did need to buy the f/2.8, and two; that IS was not necessary for what I wanted to use the lens for.

So what I needed was a fast lens without image stabilization… That left me with either the Canon or the Sigma..

www.dprieview.com did a comparison of the 4 lenses in this segment (they used the Canon with IS to compare it to the new Nikon with VR), but it still gives you a pretty good comparison of the cheap versus the dang expensive.

What it boils down to is that the Sigma wont perform as well fully open as the Canon and that’s it! So why buy the Canon if you’re not a pro photographer who can justify spending all that extra money for a little more miniscule clarity?

Because of the “wauw” factor… I experienced it when at the local football game mentioned earlier. Having that lens on the camera and the whole thing mounted on a monopod, you look so much like a pro, that you, will see people bending down, so as to not get in the  shot, when they walk in front of you; even if your eye is clearly not looking through the viewfinder…

A white lens tells everyone around you, that you mean business and that you know a thing or two about photography.

I had 900 pounds to spend on camera equipment, so the search was on to find the Canon lens for as little money as possible.
I ended up opting for the Canon version on Ebay where the price is considerably lower…  I finally settled on a seller called Digigood…
This seller has a lot of feedback, which for me was the most important. I wanted to make sure that whomever I decided to buy from, would deliver the product as promised, without too much fuzz.

I ordered the lens Tuesday and received it the following Thursday. That’s a two day commute from England. Pretty good in my book.

I shot some footage with my Nokia 5800 Express Music of the premiere opening of the box..

I’ll try and post a review of the lens in a month or so..

Part Ohd

Part Deux

Related posts:

  1. Considering