How's the picture quality on this lens compared to the 200mm f/2.8?? I know the lighting is better of course on 2.8, but just wanted to get opinions
466981
Hi. I don't have a comparison. With image stabilization the f/2.8 is not required for most people. The f/4L is much lighter. All of the L series are good quality. I suggest checking the photo magazines where they do extensive lab tests under all conditions.
466982
I don't have the 200 f/2.8, but I do have the 70-200 f/4, and the 300 f/4. The 300 is an excellent prime lens. I think the primary difference is the light gathering capacity, and I can live with that.
466983
I don't have the 200mm, so can't compare. I have no complaints on this lens, if that helps.
1078010
Low light with the kit lens is pretty bad. At f3.5 even with image stabilization you have to crank the ISO up. I'm talking on the beach by torchlight low light mind you. I mostly use the Sigma 19mm and 30mm f2.8 and the extra stop makes it a lot better. I'm sure with the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 this camera shines in low light. I recently took my G5 with 19mm to a gaming convention and the pics turned out really well.
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
931876
24-70 f 2.8 is awesome, 70-200 f 2.8 , 85 f 1.8 . I use all 3 of these lenses, I am a professional portrait and event photographer.
1936776
I've had absolutely no issues. This is my second most go to lens when shooting portraits. I prefer the 70-200 more, but that's just my style.
2096571
It is hard to say.... I am very satisfied with the 18-200mm. The quality is impressive and i don't mind the weight of the camera. It is the only lens I use. If I need additional detail, I can use the available computer software to provide additional zoom. Overall, I am very happy with the camera and lens.
18315
I purchased the 56/1.2. What an amazing lens! I have a blast with the portraits now I am able to take. Another great prime lens would be the 23/1.4. I don't have it since I have the X100s as well. My last Fuji lens is the 55-200. Very sharp, well built lens. Took it on an air show and was able to take great, sharp photos on fast moving jets and airplanes. Can't go wrong with it.
1205533
OK it's just a lens and it's fixed at f:8 so unless you're shooting at a very high ISO it's not going to work in low light. Also it's not the clearest lens in the world....
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
994201
If you like shooting in near darkness with no light, the 2.8 is for you. The other, which I have and use in low-light is marvelous. That ability coupled with the camera's keen excellence in auto program yields beautiful photos. Frankly, I hate shooting in the dark.
2242944
It performs well in low light, sometimes throws a shadow, but I think that is my inexperience as a user. Wonderful lens!
473926
I'm getting ready to order the 400mm. I already have the 70-200L 2.8 IS and if I wanted the extra reach with zoom, I could put my 1.4x teleconverter on it, making it a [roughly] 100-280 f4.0. I don't have the 100-400 to compare, but I'd guess the sharpness is about the same between the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 1.4x. I still wouldn't have the reach between 280-400 but I'd have the sharpness when I need it. I can always attempt to move my feet to frame a subject with a prime if I'm too close. Read the reviews and decide for yourself.
1551101
That is exactly why I purchased this lens and I love it! The focus is a bit soft if you try and go below f2.2, but as I'm generally shooting moving children I usually keep it around f2.5 or 2.8 anyway. Hope this helps!
568551
The 200mm gives you more extra zoom than you would think. I probably do more shooting at that focal length than any other.
131464
The reviews I have seen (the in-depth for real ones, not the ones on sales sites) talk about the P80's lens slowness while trying to take pictures. I'm sure it's not as slow as the old (3-4 years ago) digital cameras but evidently it is a glaring issue in certain light situations. I am a Nikon shooter for over 30 years and have D200 DSLR now which I am very happy with, but I bought a FZ28K for a trip to Paris and am so far very happy with it. The iA mode is really pretty amazing - great exposure in almost all situations.
8522
Hardy,Thanks for the info about getting better lenses. I just "bit the bullet" and bought the 24-105mm L lens. I have heard this same wise advice from other photographers, and I am looking forward to getting sharper photos with the new lens, and I will try to get only L lenses from now on. In the end, you truly get what you pay for.
2004641
hi. Do you plan to shoot more weddings or landscapes...? i think it could be the answer of your question. I think about buying this lens too. i am a wedding photographer, and wedding conditions are always dark light situations. So i need the 2.8 aperture. If you are more a nature photographer, so the 2.8 is not so needed. During wedding the IS can't help too much, because the people that you take are dancing, the low speed will be impossible to use, even with IS on.I hope it will hlep you.