what do you think comparing this with 70-200 f2.8?
1939648
I got this because I take my camera everywhere, but don't always know what shooting conditions I'm going to encounter. I wanted the wide zoom range. It's not as sharp or fast as my 2.8L lenses, but to be fair they're also primes. But it is a fine lens to own if you need a zoom with good range. I've gotten great images from both ends of the spectrum with this one. I also own a Tamron 2.8 70-200 but I haven't even gotten it out since I got this one, since I'm mainly shooting outdoors during the day I just haven't needed anything faster.
1939649
I have taken some incredible pictures with it. It has a larger range and though a little slow - I did not find that to be a problem with IS.
1939650
The 28-300 is more of an all around lens. It is powerful enough for both wide angle and telephoto. The difference of the f stops is not that drastic. I have the 28-300 and used it only in Africa for two weeks and have hundreds of great pictures, many that the 70-200 could not produce.
1939651
For one thing you don't have the full range as the 28/300... Which is an all around lens. I would say the 70/200 being 2.8 captures great shots that you are planning for in that range, Unlike the other where the shots might be wide angle to zoom changing frequently.
624550
I have the 2.8L lens, and I love it, but I wish it had IS. In my opinion, the only real advantage of the 2.8 is its greater light gathering power, to shoot inside or in deep shadows. The f4 with the IS can do most everything you want, especially if you have a camera with a high ISO. I don't know of any differences in the glass.
1547552
Sure, it should be very similar. 2.8 is 2.8 no matter which lens. The larger the aperture the faster your shutter speed will be. Obviously you need to be close enough, it seems like some of the other comments haven't read what you asked. I have used this to catch my son running around the house or outside. I also have the 70-200 f4 IS for telephoto zoom.
2176757
Planning to but canon 70-200 L but confused now after reading the forums and comments. Which one I should buy ?canon 70-200 F4 L IS USM or f2.8 L USL (Non IS)Pls Suggest
483541
The IQ of the newer version in much better. I have owned or have used every Canon version of the 70-200mm and this lens is bye far the sharpest with the F4 IS coming in second.
2043803
The main difference appears to be the aperture. The f/2.8 will work better in lower light giving you at least an extra stop of light to play with. This means shorter exposures in lower light than the f/4-5.6.
1887047
Marc, It looks like the AL2223 has slightly better features. This is the model that I will be purchasing in the coming week or so. The contrast ratio is slightly higher (800:1 as opposed to 700:1) so I think this is a better deal. Maybe others have some feedback that will add to the discussion? : Michael
1549359
I would go with a more versatile lens for low light performances. Maybe a 70-200 or something similar.
305770
The image quality (sharpness, contrast, bokeh) of this 28mm prime is vastly superior to that of the 28-300mm. Primes are going to beat zooms 9 times out of 10 when it comes to IQ anyway, but even moreso when compared to a super-zoom like the 28-300mm. The 24-70mm f2.8 would be a closer competitor, but still falls short when solely comparing IQ.For reference, I own both the 28mm and the 24-70mm, and have used the 28-300mm a handful of times.
357732
I think the 24-120 is considerably more usable, and the f2.8 is not really necessary for low light with the D750 sensor. The f2.8 offers shorter Depth of Field, if that's the important thing to you. I have a 24-85mm f2.8-4D (I don't like the G version) that I use for this range on my D800E, mostly. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the 24-120 f4, with similar optical performance. It lacks the 24-120 VR.The 24-70 is by far the largest and heaviest of the lenses I've mentioned, a negative for me.
1716984
Hello Amy, I really haven't used this product since I bought it; I initially thought it was the 24-70mm f 2.8L. As a matter of fact, I will be returning it. I am, therefore, not the best person to give a critique. However, I'm sure you'll find these links useful: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspxhttp://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/
990747
depends on your usage, i'd say the 35mm f1.8g because its a better all rounder and is a lot sharper than the 55-200 ( i have both of these ) the 35mm is great for indoors i chose the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8 because its wider. The build quality is not that great on the 55-200 and the vr motor gives a noise also the focusing speed is slow on the 55-200mm
568551
The 200mm gives you more extra zoom than you would think. I probably do more shooting at that focal length than any other.
1445793
A 70-200 can work for either, but it's going to give you a specific look. The longer the lens, the more the space in front of and behind your subject compresses, making everything feel a bit closer together. But, it also has a shallower depth of field so the look you get can be very interesting. In simple terms, the 70-200 can punch through a scene and grab a moment at an event or in an environment that you couldn't get on a wider lens.
1480831
Not as good as f2.8 obviously but fisheyes, stabilization and slow enough shutter will do fine if not trying to capture a fast mo ing subject.
513702
That lens would be too heavy and expensive to manufacture. You think the 70-200 2.8 II is heavy? That lens would be a beast. The manufacturing design of a lens that has in its range very wide to telephoto is extremely complex at 2.8 max aperture. I don't see it happening in the near to medium future (5 to 10 years) if ever.
1783066
If you're referring to the 70-200mm F2.8, lenses with wider apertures always cost more. F4.5 is not a very bright lens, but since it's primary use is for outdoors telephoto photography you probably won't miss that wider aperture.