Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (
More info?)
"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news
YF6e.36821$vd.20434@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:G5m6e.690$xE2.268@fed1read04...
>> Canon 70-210 2.8 IS L get's you there, and then some when used with the
>> Canon 1.4x extender.
>> This will get you to a high quality 280mm, which, with the 1.6 crop
>> factor gives you a field of view similar to 448mm compared with field of
>> view (and perceived enlargement) compared with 35mm film mount.
>> -Mark
>> (Again...see my other post to you)
>> (See my other post in this thread for more on the 70-200 2.8 IS).
>
>
> Mark, you make a good point with the 70-200m IS L and the 1.4x extender.
> Seems like I want extremely good optical quality, this is the lens to get.
>
> Clyde Torres
I don't know your style of use or the emphasis you place on the
weight/lightness of your system... If you have some sort of overt limiting
factor that makes weight a real issue, there is no denying that it's not a
light-weight.
BUT... I have to tell you that it rarely, if ever, even occurs to me. This
particular lens is ALWAYS in my bag--no matter what. I use a Lowe-Pro Orion
bag, which is a hip bag. My standard carrying set up includes the 16-35 2.8
L, the 1.4x extender, 70-20 2.8 IS L, and the 28-135 IS which is usually
mounted on my camera (either that, or the wide lens)...along with a 550EX,
timer remote cable release, vertical grip, and various other doodads
(batteries, memory cards, portable hard-drive storage device, etc.). All of
this fits within the Orion, and is quite comfortable to carry, since it sits
on your hip/torso area.
I am mentioning this only because much has been made about the weight of
lenses in this thread. It is my contention that many folks tend to miss a
tremendous set of optics in the name of perhaps one pound. In the scheme of
what we carry, it's really not a big deal. Even more surprisingly, when one
gets used to teh more substantial Canon L tele lenses, it becomes strange to
hold lesser weighted teles. Personally I find that the weight acts as a
stabilizer of sorts, simply due to the natural stability from heavier
objects in general. Hand jitters are reduced. Try holding a pencil in your
hand without notice tiny movements... -Now try it with a two pound object.
You'll find that the "jitters" are nearly gone, simply because it takes more
than jitters to move the object.
I love the feel of my DSLR when the heavier lens is mounted now. It feels
secure and solid as a rock in terms of stability and build quality. If it
becomes truly cumbersome, remember that the 70-200 (and the 100-400, for
that matter) come equipped with a tripod mounting ring on the lens itself.
Mount a monopod to this, and you can stand longer with it aimed at your
subject than a lighter lens without one!
If you do end up going with L teles, I would also recommend that at some
point you consider the vertical grip for your 20D. Not only will it create
a more balanced feel, but you'll gain real functionality and additional
battery life (which is already good).
Just another 4 cents or so...
-Mark
/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Facebook
Twitter