Music gig lens choice

[koffiejunkie]

First I've ever heard of a 70-200 doing this, particularly as it has a fixed barrel length.

The barrel may be fixed, but the elements still move forward and backward. If you look in the back of the lens and turn the zoom lens, you'll see what I'm referring to (assuming the f/4 works the same).

That, along with you saying it was slow in focusing, makes me think they rented you a real lemon.

I said slow-ish. It's definitely better than, say, the 18-200mm IS I had, but it's definitely slower than the 24-105L. That may be just because of the heavier elements it has to move around and maybe the physical distances the elements move are more? I don't really know but I can tell it's harder work - battery life is definitely less than I'm used to!

I guess it could also be just well worn from use/abuse. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a lemon - the output is just fine.

 

[bwana]

I can swing my f4 in an arc and jump up and down and the focus and zoom stay right where I left them. Just asked a friend with the 2.8 you rented and he says the same.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I guess it's not what it should be then

 

[koffiejunkie]

I really liked this lens and the pictures so far look good, but I'm not saving up for one just yet. I found it a bit too long on the short side when I'm reasonably close. I can see how it would be perfect on APS-H or full frame, but with 1.6x crop it's a bit too much and I found myself using the 24-105L a lot more than I expected. There were some things I didn't like about it too: focus is slow-ish, it focus creeps, it zoom creeps (quite badly). Oh, and I seriously need IS on a lens like this.

Thought I'd update this, to set the record, so to speak. I definitely am now saving up for this one. I am truly and thoroughly seduced by the pictures that came out of this lens. I will of course go for the IS version, maybe, just maybe, the new one

 

[bwana]

Thought I'd update this, to set the record, so to speak. I definitely am now saving up for this one. I am truly and thoroughly seduced by the pictures that came out of this lens. I will of course go for the IS version, maybe, just maybe, the new one

Me too. Apparently the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and 2xTC is a stunning combo.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I can imagine. From the reviews I've seen the new 70-200 is actually a touch shaper than the 200mm f/2.8 L II, particularly wide open. That said, I am very close to buying the 200mm. After holding that 70-200 f/2.8 up for four days on end, I have come to appreciate the value of a shorter, lighter lens Also, looking through my pictures of the event, the majority of shots were at 200mm. I figure, I don't like standing right in front of the stage (particularly the area that a photo pass gets you if you can't get on stage) because then you're shooting up at too steep an angle. I can always position myself so that the 200mm is just right, and fill in with the 24-105L when I want wider shots.

The other consideration is size. At 13cm odd, it's only a touch longer than my 24-105L, so much easier to sneak into venues that don't like long lenses.

 

[bwana]

I can imagine. From the reviews I've seen the new 70-200 is actually a touch shaper than the 200mm f/2.8 L II, particularly wide open. That said, I am very close to buying the 200mm. After holding that 70-200 f/2.8 up for four days on end, I have come to appreciate the value of a shorter, lighter lens Also, looking through my pictures of the event, the majority of shots were at 200mm. I figure, I don't like standing right in front of the stage (particularly the area that a photo pass gets you if you can't get on stage) because then you're shooting up at too steep an angle. I can always position myself so that the 200mm is just right, and fill in with the 24-105L when I want wider shots.

The other consideration is size. At 13cm odd, it's only a touch longer than my 24-105L, so much easier to sneak into venues that don't like long lenses.

If they were all at 200mm then I'd say get the 200mm but if all you have to fall back on is the 24-105 f/4 then you're hobbling yourself. If you had the 24-70 f/2.8 it would be a different matter, although having to swap lenses during a concert wastes time and if they're only going to let you shoot a couple songs . . . which is why for some shows I still carry a 400D with the 50mm f/1.4 as a third camera. I'd never get a straight 200 f/2.8 if I could get the same aperture on a zoom.

 

[koffiejunkie]

If they were all at 200mm then I'd say get the 200mm but if all you have to fall back on is the 24-105 f/4 then you're hobbling yourself.

Well, I found myself shooting at either end of the lens - very very little in-between, and then mostly on the wider side. So, at least for this application, it makes sense.

If you had the 24-70 f/2.8 it would be a different matter, although having to swap lenses during a concert wastes time and if they're only going to let you shoot a couple songs

I don't get photo passes. I shoot from the crowd. For most shows, that means showing up early enough to find a good spot, and once the place fills up there's little room to move about. At the festivals way out in sticks where everyone's completely laid back and probably a little stoned, moving around is not too much of a problem - people tend to be nice about it. But the city folk aren't always as understanding.

I'd never get a straight 200 f/2.8 if I could get the same aperture on a zoom.

I'm also considering finances. Right now I can afford the 200mm and I have tickets for a few very nice shows