Just bought a 60D which lense?

C

Conshaunn16

Member
I just bought a canon 60D and im trying to decide which lenses to get.
I know i want a 70-200mm but im trying to decide between f/2.8 or f/4?
Also canon vs sigma?
Image stablization worth the large price sticker?
 
do you already have other lenses? if not i would say get the 24-105L. better range for everything.
 
Come on, really? You could use the searchbar, there are heaps of "which lens" threads.

If you can afford it, get the f/2.8. It's not IS that makes it worth the upgrade, it's an extra stop of light that does.

Also, inb4 people tell you Tokina 11-16. Not saying its bad (Oh dear god do I want one) I'm just saying that all of NS whores it.
 
the 70-200 is fun, i've played around with it. if you have the money definitely go for the 2.8 mainly because of the extra stop of light, as somebody else said. but there's not a huge noticeable difference in the depth of field between the 2.8 and 4, which was something i was curious about when i tried them. if you're going to be doing video, definitely get IS.
another solid lens, even though it's not an L series, is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I got it when I bought my T2i since the kit lens is terrible, and I use it all the time.
 
arguable, since you're stabilizing (hopefully with a tripod, glidecam or shoulder mount) your videoshots, IS shouldn't be needed because your image doesn't need to be stabilized.
 
with a wider lens i would say you're right to some degree. but this is the 70-200, so you would need to be pretty good with a glidecam to not need IS. and if you're using a dolly, any little bumps in the track will cause jitters in the shot if you don't have IS. there's a reason most video cameras come with OIS
trust me, i've got the 85mm f/1.8 without IS and I have to try really hard to make it smooth when it's on a dolly.
 
Surely a 70-200 is a little too tele for a glidecam. I use a Sigma 70-300 as my tele, for ski togging i almost always shoot at F8+ no need for IS, making the only advantage of the 70-200 2.8 the sharpness. My 2p.
 
I have the 4L non IS and I can see where IS would help, however, when I tested the IS on the 2.8L II, it's not the IS you would expect and didn't help at all. better off without it and save those few bucks
 
The ideal of using a 70-200 lens with a glidecam would be ridiculous to shoot skiing. About as far as I would go is 24mm with IS on a cropped sensor camera and even then it is far better to stick with a wider lens without IS like the Tokina.
I doubt you would use the 2.8 enough to make it worth the extra money, weight and size and the sharpness on the f4 is nearly as good. Dan Carr puts forward a strong argument for this on his blog I believe.
If your filming handheld without stabilisation you want IS unless you have a very wide angle as any camera shake will become noticeable.
 
yea i would never use something like that with a glidecam, i only said that because the guy who quoted me argued my point by saying you wouldn't need IS, but I don't think he realizes how noticeable camera shake would be at 70mm or higher. with my glidecam, i only ever use my 17-55mm f/2.8 at 17mm.
As for advantage of the 2.8, I always shoot wide open since I love getting the most shallow depth of field possible, even if i'm doing follow cams. So 2.8 would appeal to me as you can make it a little more shallow, but to OP, if you're going to be shooting above f/4, especially for video, then you might not need the 2.8
 
sorry for double post, but I just wanted to make sure it wasn't coming off as though I think the 2.8 is clearly the better choice. I plan on purchasing the f/4 because of the price and size
 
If you're interested in a 70-200 f/4L, I have one for sale with a UV and CPL filter. I've probably only used it 8 times, and not at all in the past year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top