Canon 20D, or 50D, or Lenses oh my

[jampat]

I did not find it that heavy at all. I pretty much carried it all day long. Even my 8 year old daughter picked it up and shot a bunch of good pics with it .
Some better than mine.

I also wanted to try out the 100-400 as well. I know I will need a longer zoom and not sure which one yet. I think my friens is willing to part with the 24-70mm 2.8. He said rarely uses it since he has another lens that more or less covers the range. He also typically uses prime lenses.

So if the price is right...... But I'll wait it out a little and see if anything new comes down the Canon pike this fall. You have piqued my curiosity.

Definitely try out the 100-400 before you think about buying it. Push-pull is a love/hate feature depending on the person. One one had it gives you fast zooming, on the other you can get zoom creep if you are shooting at an angle and it pumps air in and out of the lens which could suck dirt and moisture into the lens. I would try out the 70-200's and see how you like them. They really do take great pictures (and don't change length, so no dirt sucking). f4 may be a little sharper and is definitely a lot cheaper/lighter/smaller, 2.8 has really beautiful bokeh wide open (at least for a zoom, some primes are better), but you pay for it. You can also use a 2x teleconverter on a 2.8 and still have autofocus (quality takes a dive though), you can only keep autofocus on your body with a 1.4x on the f4.

 

[JFreak]

70-200's really do take great pictures. f4 may be a little sharper and is definitely a lot cheaper/lighter/smaller, 2.8 has really beautiful bokeh wide open (at least for a zoom, some primes are better), but you pay for it.

You have a combination of information and misinformation here. First of all, you're right about f/4 probably being little sharper than f/2.8 but then you're talking about f/4 IS version. And you have to factor in whether the subject moves or not. Anyway, the (subjective) 70-200 sharpness rank goes like this:

1) f/4 IS for everything
2) f/2.8 non-IS for steady subject
3) f/2.8 IS for steady subject
4) f/2.8 IS for moving subject
5) f/2.8 non-IS for moving subject
6) f/4 non-IS for everything

So the f/2.8 version with or without IS and with a steady or moving subject makes it difficult to judge. Either way, the both f/2.8 versions are slightly less sharp than f/4 IS version but noticeably sharper than the f/4 non-IS version. There's a big difference between the cheapest model and the rest, but the rest are close in the real world.

But if you only compare resolution charts on tripod, then you get the difference, but it is really not much so the IS is a real benefit. Even more so for the f/4 model (because the more expensive model is sharper) but also for the f/2.8 model (because the more expensive model is not noticeably less sharp but gains the IS feature).

Okay, that's it and most probably you meant it this way

 

[John.B]

Wasn't this "brick" the one that reverse extends? Shortest tube at longest focal length and vice versa.

That's the one. The hood is actually useful for all focal lengths and not just at its widest. Sweet lens, autofocuses fast and accurately. But heavy for its size (2+ lbs). Imagine if it had four stops of IS in low light as well as for the (pseudo) "macro" range.

Either way, the both f/2.8 versions are slightly less sharp than f/4 IS version but noticeably sharper than the f/4 non-IS version. There's a big difference between the cheapest model and the rest, but the rest are close in the real world.

IRL the IS on the 70-200 4.0 IS is noticeably better than on the 70-200 2.8 IS (at >= f/4.0 for those keeping score at home), and is more useful since its far more handholdable.

 

[CodeRaven]

Me too, but I unfortunately do not own one. It's hard to justify buying that to go with my 70-200 IS f/2.8L though it (135) is so small I might at some point be forced to buy it

I'm a prime kinda guy for right now, only zoom I have is the 24-105mm f/4L IS.
Right now, I've been mainly shooting my 200mm f/2.8L (for baseball games in a dome) and starting to go back and experiment with my 85mm f/1.2L.

Yeah.... I got "L" fever bad....

 

[JFreak]

IRL the IS on the 70-200 4.0 IS is noticeably better than on the 70-200 2.8 IS (at >= f/4.0 for those keeping score at home), and is more useful since its far more handholdable.

At f/4 or smaller aperture, yep you're right (and agreeing to the point I made earlier). But then you don't have the option of using f/2.8 where you need to!

I mean, IRL using f/2.8 where you need to gives one far more handholdability than f/4 with any future tech IS. So if you compare f/2.8 IS to f/4 IS with their largest apertures, then simply the larger aperture wins. Photography is after all about capturing the light. The more light lens lets through, the better motion stopping capability.

It is obviously unfair comparison between f/2.8 and f/4, but if the conditions require f/2.8 it is no good to choose f/4 even though the IS and IQ was slightly better.

Viewfinder is also brighter with f/2.8