Canon 1Ds Mark-II + Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Siddhartha Jain, Feb 4, 2005.

  1. I can only say WOW!! Landed in Manila yesterday and went to this
    Photoworld exhibition they have here. Canon's stall had the 1Ds Mark-II
    on display. I asked the rep to show me the camera. He tried to get a
    regular lens but found his colleague using it on the 1D. So he took out
    the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 "L" IS lens from the showcase and put it on and
    gave me the camera to play with :)

    It was inside a mall in the night and the lighting was good but I was
    expecting a shutter speed of less than 1/100 sec. My jaw dropped when I
    saw the camera choose 1/500sec!!

    I never thought I'd put a "L" lens on my wishlist coz I thought those
    are only for pros who need all that sharpness and contrast.

    Phew!! Wow!! What a lens and what a camera!!
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Eric Gill Guest

    Like a good drug dealer...
    Your first mistake. Your second one was dispelling that illusion by
    actually using one. Now you are on the Golden Treadmill of The Empty Bank
    Account. ;-}
    One obersvation - the Sigma version is easily the equal of the 70-200
    EXCEPT for lacking the IS. It's served me very well indeed.

    If you can live without the IS, you can pay roughly half as much for that
    eye-popping quality.
     
    Eric Gill, Feb 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Skip M Guest

    No, they're not just for pros who "need" the sharpness, contrast and speed
    of the "L" lenses, they're for anyone who WANTS those qualities! :)
     
    Skip M, Feb 4, 2005
    #3
  4. You bet!! If I could sell my car and other stuff online back in India
    and get the money then I would've done it in instant.

    Correction. Negative networth, not zero networth!!

    Heh, after a 300D, the accessories, and two Sigma lenses (24-135mm and
    70-300mm), I am so broke that I can't even dream of a $800 lens!! :)

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 4, 2005
    #4
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    It was inside a mall in the night and the lighting was good but I was
    You didn't notice what the ISO was, did you?

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Feb 4, 2005
    #5
  6. I was trying to shoot some lit-up ferries at night while they were in
    motion with kit lens and given the slow shutter speeds that you get in
    the night coupled with the fact that the ferries were in motion gave me
    blurred photos. Shutter speeds would come to 1/2 or 1/4 sec and so I
    thought even if I bought a gazillion dollar lens, it would still
    improve to 1/8sec maybe. But I guess I know the answer now :)

    Anyways, I'll take my kit lens to the same spot tomorrow and see what
    shutter speed does it throw up at f3.5. Ideally, half a stop difference
    should give me a shutter speed of somewhere around 1/400sec (the 70-200
    "L" gave me 1/500sec).

    Now now, I am in no way trying to compare them but just want to check.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 4, 2005
    #6
  7. Apart from the Canon, there were ofcourse Nikon and Minolta. The Canon
    and Minolta guys readily let me play with the cameras. Infact, the
    Canon guy had to do some legwork to get the 1Ds-mark-II out of the
    showcase. The Nikon guy discouraged me from asking him to take the
    camera out of the showcase (D70). First directed me to a colleague, who
    directed me back to this guy. Then just pointed at the D70 in the
    showcase when I asked him to bring it out. Only when I repeated that I
    want it my hands did she yield!! Sheesh!!

    Then went to the Sigma guy who announced that he was die-hard Sigma
    fan. His reasoning was my Sigma, for half the price of Canon, will last
    me four years. The Canon will last me eight years. After four years, I
    will have a new lens while the Canon guy will have a four year old lens
    :) Heheh ... interesting viewpoint.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Why? Only a pro would do that!
     
    Dave R knows who, Feb 4, 2005
    #8
  9. I did - it was ISO 100. I'll go over to Sigma's stall tomorrow and
    check their 70-200mm f2.8 EX IF HSM.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 4, 2005
    #9
  10. Siddhartha Jain

    paul Guest


    That's a steal, the comparable Nikon lens is $1,600
     
    paul, Feb 4, 2005
    #10
  11. Siddhartha Jain

    eawckyegcy Guest

    The basic rule with any optics is simple: never look through it unless
    you can afford it.
     
    eawckyegcy, Feb 4, 2005
    #11
  12. Siddhartha Jain

    Colic Guest

    ....because the more expensive it is the more likely you are to be blown away
    by its results.

    C
     
    Colic, Feb 4, 2005
    #12
  13. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Browne- Guest

    Exceptions being ultrafast f/1.2 .. f/1.0 lenses that are great at
    gathering light but are not as sharp as their slightly slower
    counterparts like 85mm f/1.4s.
     
    Alan Browne-, Feb 4, 2005
    #13
  14. I think you would find the 70-200mm F/2.8 L lens will last you a long
    time and it is not likely that a better lens will come out (yeah, one
    can never say never). But if you get such a top lens, when you
    have money to get another lens it can be something completely
    different. (I own both sigma, Canon regular, and Canon L lenses).
    I do not agree with the sigma guy replacing a lens every 4 years.
    If so, it is a crappy lens and shouldn't have been bought in the
    first place in my opinion (unless one is just starting out and
    you plan on such replacement because you can't afford the top
    right off--it's taking me 20+ years to build my system and I'm
    still working on it ;-)

    Roger
    http://www.clarkvision.com
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Feb 5, 2005
    #14
  15. Siddhartha Jain

    Mark² Guest

    The 70-200 2.8 IS is the best performing lens in my collection, and worth every penny of
    it's cost.
    Fantastic in EVERY respect.
    The L's really do perform incredibly well, and are sure to live well beyond lesser lenses.
    Save your pennies...you WON'T regret your purchase.
    -Mark
     
    Mark², Feb 5, 2005
    #15
  16. Siddhartha Jain

    Mark² Guest

    Hee hee hee.
     
    Mark², Feb 5, 2005
    #16
  17. Siddhartha Jain

    Mark² Guest

    I think she means "$800" for the SIGMA!

    -The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS is around $1600-$1700.
    :)
     
    Mark², Feb 5, 2005
    #17
  18. I didn't really agree with his logic but was just kind of blogging from
    Photoworld, here.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 5, 2005
    #18
  19. Siddhartha Jain

    Frank ess Guest

    Amazon.com points at new and used $590-$500.

    Am I looking at the wrong lens?
     
    Frank ess, Feb 5, 2005
    #19
  20. Siddhartha Jain

    Ron Lacey Guest

    Ron Lacey, Feb 5, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.