efoto said:When I went to my local retailer to mess around with these for research I noticed a difference between the 2.8 and 4, but...
FWIW, I'm still trying to get used to the 2.8 versus the lens I was using as its predecessor, the (old style) 75-300mm IS. IIRC, the latter's only a ~1lb lens.
You may want to take a look at the SlingShot 200 bag from LowePro.
I'm currently configuring two carrying systems: an airline transport system, and a "carry it around" system. For the former, I've got one of the Tamrac 'backpack' types that includes a sleeve that carries my 12" PB. For the latter, I had solicited advice on <rec.photo.digital.slr-systems> and was pointed to the Kinesis system.
The key to my requirements was in wanting a holster case that would swallow the 20D with both the 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.4x teleextender attached ... the latter adds roughly an extra inch, which is what made the Lowepro "Off Trail 2 Camera Beltpack" I had picked up just a smidge too short (the zipper would close, but it was too tight). The Kinesis "c580" holster case is around an inch deeper and provides nice clearance:
http://www.kinesisgear.com/c.html#c580
Between the case, a heavy-duty belt, two lens cases and a dozen other little widgets (its a modular system), it has set me back another $300, but as a carrying system, it will most definitely do the job and the construction is top notch, so it will last for a decade or longer.
Do all polarizers snag a stop? I know that the 1.4x Teleconverter grabs one, but do the polarizers too? (can you tell I haven't opted cash for one yet?)
I'm pretty sure that they all do.
All in all, I generally value a polarizer more for wider angle shots, so I don't have to worry too much about the speed loss on a telephoto. Plus, I already have a 77mm for my WA lens, so if I do ever want to throw it on the 70-200 f/2.8, I'm covered.
<On Trade-Offs> Of course, that is why there are different offers both in lenses and bodies for unique applications and users. I would love to have large, bulky, fast lenses, but someone else may love compact, light, moderately speedy lenses even though you could argue they are sacrificing things.
Agreed. Even had I had the 2.8 last year when we went to Peru, there's simply no way that I would have lugged a lens that heavy with us on our hike of the Inca trail. Every extra pound on a 3 day / 20-25 miles (yeah, we took the "easy, short" route ... a lot lower elevation too: 8,000ft versus 11,000ft) hike is a trade-off. As it was, I left my 28-135mm IS behind.
The trade off is that when you do get lucky, the results can be less than stellar. There's a lot of frustrating fuzz in the below image, but there may be some hope for it, since its from only a 6MP scan a 35mm film original:
Peru's National Bird ("Cock of the Rock") taken with a 35mm Canon EOS Elan IIe and 75-300mm IS @ 300mm. Handheld; unknown f/shutter (shaded forest canopy, so probably f/5.6 and ~1/90sec) Film original scanned as 6MP JPEG; cropped ~75% (net effective focal length approx. ~1000mm).
But at least I have this shot
Perhaps if more and more lenses continue to become offered as DO lenses (diffractive optics) and maintain a certain level of speed then we will see a movement to DO as a new 'standard'.
1200mm DO lens still 30" long
Agreed. The 400mm f/4 IS DO (my "wish" lens) is a good example: its only 9.2" long and 4.3 lbs. Plus when you add a 1.4x and a 20D the stack makes it effectively a 900mm f/5.6 IS, which at a 33% crop should give you the equivalent of a 6MP @ 1200mm f/5.6 IS
Despite the $5300 sticker it comes with, in comparison to the custom-order 1200mm f/5.6 (reported MSRP is $120,000), it can be considered "affordable".
-hh