Comments on: Canon EOS 50D Announced http://www.digitalrelish.net/152/canon-eos-50d-announced/ Focusing on Digital Photography Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:16:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Will http://www.digitalrelish.net/152/canon-eos-50d-announced/comment-page-1/#comment-546 Will Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:33:49 +0000 http://www.digitalrelish.net/?p=152#comment-546 Well, I've got a 70-200 f/4L IS (my current gear is listed on my <a href="http://www.digitalrelish.net/about/" rel="nofollow">About</a> page) and to be honest, I don't use it a great deal. I reckon that I'd probably use that focal length range more on a full-frame body like the 5D MKII (drool) however, when I do use it the IS is handy. It does seem a heck of lot more for the IS on the f/2.8, but if I got the non-IS version I'd always have that niggling doubt in the back of my mind telling me that the grass would have been more saturated on the IS side. For the time being, upgrading my longer lenses isn't a top priority as I'm shooting mostly <= 50mm. I think I'd go full frame before I did that. Well, I’ve got a 70-200 f/4L IS (my current gear is listed on my About page) and to be honest, I don’t use it a great deal. I reckon that I’d probably use that focal length range more on a full-frame body like the 5D MKII (drool) however, when I do use it the IS is handy.

It does seem a heck of lot more for the IS on the f/2.8, but if I got the non-IS version I’d always have that niggling doubt in the back of my mind telling me that the grass would have been more saturated on the IS side.

For the time being, upgrading my longer lenses isn’t a top priority as I’m shooting mostly <= 50mm. I think I’d go full frame before I did that.

]]> By: Colin http://www.digitalrelish.net/152/canon-eos-50d-announced/comment-page-1/#comment-543 Colin Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:45:10 +0000 http://www.digitalrelish.net/?p=152#comment-543 The 70-200 f/2.8 is a cracking lens but I would save yourself an extra £450 and go for the non-IS one myself. I much prefer a tripod and longer exposure than IS (I am often disappointed with IS performance). IS has it's place when you don't want to carry a tripod - but it will never match the quality of a steady camera. The 70-200 is also an amazing sports lens, and I see little use for IS in this field either - it's often the case that you want to capture the motion in the scene your taking anyway. If it was £100-200 more, then might be worth it - but for nearly £450 (7dayshop.com non-IS £785, IS £1229), I'd put the money elsewhere. Maybe a 1.4x extender at £209, Canon 100mm macro at £339, Canon 10-22 at £480 (or Sigma 10-20 at £329). Just my thoughts!!! The 70-200 f/2.8 is a cracking lens but I would save yourself an extra £450 and go for the non-IS one myself. I much prefer a tripod and longer exposure than IS (I am often disappointed with IS performance). IS has it’s place when you don’t want to carry a tripod - but it will never match the quality of a steady camera. The 70-200 is also an amazing sports lens, and I see little use for IS in this field either - it’s often the case that you want to capture the motion in the scene your taking anyway.

If it was £100-200 more, then might be worth it - but for nearly £450 (7dayshop.com non-IS £785, IS £1229), I’d put the money elsewhere. Maybe a 1.4x extender at £209, Canon 100mm macro at £339, Canon 10-22 at £480 (or Sigma 10-20 at £329).

Just my thoughts!!!

]]>