for the photographers

[focalintent]

Would you rather have:

• a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens
  
• an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens
  

The f/2.8 allows for much lower light/faster shooting. The 80-400mm gives you that much more reach. (Assume that, optically, the lenses perform roughly equivalently, e.g. roughly same levels of vignetting, distortion, softness at certain ends/apertures, etc...)

(Why isn't this a poll? Not only do i want to know which folks would prefer, i want to know the whys : )

Comments

[devina.livejournal.com]

Is this my first lens, or do I have some others?

Off the cuff, I'd prefer the first. But I like to get close up to things to take pictures, and don't tend to shoot from a distance. I also prefer natural lighting to a flash. So I'd find it more useful to have a lens that can handle low light.

[sol3.livejournal.com]

I have other lenses - my main lens these days is a 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 : )

I had chances to shoot surfers this weekend though - and, well, 70mm sucks for shooting them from shore.

I have to admit, I do have a knee jerk bias towards wanting f/2.8 lenses : ) - unfortunately I have yet to see a zoom that goes above 200mm at f/2.8 (you can get 300mm primes at 2.8, i believe - but they're also $$$$$)

[sol3.livejournal.com]

I was wrong - sigma makes a 120-300mm f/2.8!

[contessagrrl.livejournal.com]

e)

[sol3.livejournal.com]

I don't think i'd use either of those lenses if i were shooting someone shaving... Probably more likely to use the 28-70mm : ) *runs*

[tk7602.livejournal.com]

i would go with #2.

at the low end, 70 is essentially useless for anything even vaguely close up. so that leaves me mostly looking at the high end.

when i'm zooming in on something far off like that, thus far it has almost always been relatively well lit, and someplace where i can have a monopod/tripod. so the lower light and faster shooting aren't all that meaningful, given the special purpose of the lens.

but, that's based on what i tend to do when i'm zooming. for example, stonehenge wasn't really going anywhere, and it was outdoors on a sunny day. so for that, being able to get that much closer to the details in the stones would be neat.

[sol3.livejournal.com]

*nod* - i'm leaning a bit towards #2 - but damn have i developed a f/2.8 bias. Not having a good zoom to shoot surfers this week is what's putting me in the market for a new zoom. (The 5d shows flaws in the 75-300mm USM III like no tomorrow ) :

BTW - the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro II lens is -nice-. It's fairly close to the canon 28-70mm f/2.8L that i rented a few weeks ago - but you can get it off of ebay for under $200. It's a bit slower to focus than the L lens (but also $800-1000 less) but seems to be fairly close in image quality. (While the L lens is, I will grant better - the tokina blows my 28-105mm USM II lens out of the water, quality wise)

[sensesurfer.livejournal.com]

70-200 2.8 and then you can teleconvert that to a 140-400 5.6

[sol3.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm, i think it's time to hit up the rental shops (wonder if i can rent a teleconverter as well, i'd imagine so).

Of course, the 70-200 f/2.8 is more expensive than most of the other lenses i'm flipping around between - and the teleconverter is going to be another $100-300 on top of that. (I'm thinking i'd want to pair up lens mfgr and teleconverter mfgr).

The other downside to a teleconverter is then i lose the 70-140mm range when i've got the teleconverter on - which is the advantage of an 80-400mm.

So many variables, so little time (part of why i'm brain dumping about all of this so out loud).

[sol3.livejournal.com]

BTW - see above about the tokina lens that i've got. Nice fast lens - seems to give me pretty good image quality too. I'm in boston for april - if you want to play around with it I can bring it to a silks night with me : )

(I didn't think i'd be happy with a 3rd party lens - but supposedly the higher end lenses from the 3rd parties (sigma, tokina, tamron) actually don't suck - and this lens was cheap enough to grab and play with and resell if i didn't like it - cost me what it would take to rent the equivalent L lens for 2 weeks : )

[sensesurfer.livejournal.com]

I think I am going to avoid the non-cannon lenses for the simple fact that the 28-105 that I paid $229 for in 1999 is worth $220 right now on ebay. Funny as I can buy it new for about $229 now. My only concern is with the -c lenses and will they hold their values once cheaper full frame dslrs hit the market.

Oooooo please bring camera toys when you come. Hopefully I will have a 30D to play with then!

[bratling.livejournal.com]

70-200 f/2.8.

i so often shoot in low or marginal lighting that i value the ability to gather more light more than i gather the ability to zoom. i can almost always walk closer to my subject. (i don't do birdwatching.)

if your regular subjects are far off and in daylight, sure, go for the 80-400. but me, i do close-ups and medium, so i want light and optical clarity more than ultimate zoom.