I am trying to decide which lens to buy the 70-200 f/4 L or 2.8 L. I understnad that the 2.8L is a wonderful lens (every serious photographer must have one). I also understand that the weight of the 2.8 lens is enourmous(as well as the price). Can the 2.8 lens be handheld comfortably or is a tripod a must. Does the extra sto justify the extra weight and extra cost just?? Can anyone help me with my dilemna?

-- Colleen (col@cujo2.icom.ca), April 15, 2001

Answers

Rent the f2.8 for a week, and (a) shoot with it, (b)carry it on your neck or shoulder, and (c) carry it in your bag.

Your first hand experience is the only way to really determine this. If you love the results and can tolerate the weight, you will be much more confident in your purchase. If not, consider the f4.0.

-- kenneth katz (socks@bestweb.net), April 15, 2001.

I have the 70-200 2.8L and I'd have to say I use it on a tripod 80 percent of the time. I seldom shoot anything over 100 ISO and so the tripod is the best bet for dependably sharp photos.

Is the weight an issue? I'm a slightly built woman over the age of 40. I can carry the 2.8 lens, camera, and tripod with a ballhead over one shoulder and another camera and lens over the other shoulder or in my backpack. (I can also complain a lot while I'm hauling all of that gear)...

I love the lens. I have the old Canon 70-210. It's small and very easy to hand hold. It's also not nearly as sharp and so I hardly ever use it.

As for cost, only you can decide if the cost of the 2.8 is justifiable...

Hope this helps!

-- Tere Hendricks (dc20000@mail.state.tn.us), April 17, 2001.

Would you believe I just posted almost the exact same question on photo.net? I too have decided to go for an "L," and was wondering about the handholdability of the 2.8 (in case I can't use a tripod in some locations while traveling). I've received one response so far, saying it's not a problem to handhold if you have good upper-body strength :) Mind you, I read a few postings that said the 2.8 was easier to handhold than the 4 _because_ of the added weight - could be true, though I would venture to say that this wouldn't be the case after shooting all day with it. Two other things to consider: 1. The 2.8 comes with a tripod collar, while the 4 doesn't - buying one will set you back about $150, I think. 2. The 2.8 can be used with both the 1.4x and 2x extenders, while keeping autofocus ability (and giving you a respectable 140-400/ 5.6). The 4, if used with the 2x extender, will be a slow F8.0, and unless you're using an EOS 3 (or maybe a 1V?) you'll lose autofocus. I'm inclined to think the extra weight would be worth it. Then again, I haven't tried carrying one around all day...

Jim

-- Jim Trickett (trickett@osb.att.ne.jp), May 06, 2001.