Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 142509" data-attributes="member: 9240">I'm with Glenn here, but come at it from a different angle.&nbsp; Running with the assumption that you have written off the 70-200mm f2.8, and that you're looking at the 80-200mm f2.8 as your alternative, let me ask this question, &quot;How often can you see yourself using that lens wide open?&quot;&nbsp; More times than not I suspect that you won't be at maximum aperture out of need but more out of desire to get nice DoF for sports and whatnot, so shooting at f4, while slightly deeper, is likely possible due to the lighting conditions, and while it won't yield the same results it may just be &quot;more than close enough&quot;.&nbsp; Any aperture smaller than f4 and your only difference between the 70-200mm f4 and it's expensive brother is in the quality of the glass, and from what I've seen in photos and in various scores, there's not so much there than you'll find yourself scratching your head and wondering why you went that way.&nbsp; It's about 30% more, but it has the VR that will buy you a couple clicks down on the shutter dial for those times when you might think that having f2.8 for the light is the better option, but now you're pumping ISO or shooting blurry instead of shooting 200mm at 1/60sec.Someone else here (RickM or DaveW?) recently wrestled with this and got the 70-200mm f4.&nbsp; Maybe try and dig up their thread on it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 142509, member: 9240"] I'm with Glenn here, but come at it from a different angle. Running with the assumption that you have written off the 70-200mm f2.8, and that you're looking at the 80-200mm f2.8 as your alternative, let me ask this question, "How often can you see yourself using that lens wide open?" More times than not I suspect that you won't be at maximum aperture out of need but more out of desire to get nice DoF for sports and whatnot, so shooting at f4, while slightly deeper, is likely possible due to the lighting conditions, and while it won't yield the same results it may just be "more than close enough". Any aperture smaller than f4 and your only difference between the 70-200mm f4 and it's expensive brother is in the quality of the glass, and from what I've seen in photos and in various scores, there's not so much there than you'll find yourself scratching your head and wondering why you went that way. It's about 30% more, but it has the VR that will buy you a couple clicks down on the shutter dial for those times when you might think that having f2.8 for the light is the better option, but now you're pumping ISO or shooting blurry instead of shooting 200mm at 1/60sec. Someone else here (RickM or DaveW?) recently wrestled with this and got the 70-200mm f4. Maybe try and dig up their thread on it? [/QUOTE]

Verification