I am an avid amateur with a one-time opportunity to upgrade my lenses. I shoot everything from portraits to soccer games. I have a 20D, and I was thinking of 2 lenses. One is the 24-105 f4L IS. There is no question here. Then I was looking at the new 70-200mm F4L IS, but with the rebates offered right now, and the fact that the tripod mount is an extra $125.00 on the f4, there is only about a $200.00 difference between the 2 lenses. My question is,
cost aside, would I better better off with the smaller lighter f4, with the better IS, or the larger heavier 2.8. I'm wondering if I'll be sorry if I get the f4 because of the speed, or will I get really sick of the size and weight of the 2.8. I am also looking at the 1.4x extender. I am leaning towards the f4, because the 20D has great low light capability, and I can shoot 800 or even 1600 ISO if I need to.
Any advice from anyone who has used these lenses would be appreciated. I need to get this right, because with 1 daughter in college and another going in next year, it will be a llloooonng time before I'll be buying any more toys.
Thanks a lot,
Ed, for any reason do you need either the shallower depth-of-field available on the f/2.8 model or the brighter viewfinder image available (for manual focusing and visualization)?
If not, consider the f/4 option. Get it and enjoy it.
If so, you need to evaluate what's more important: the lighter weight or the brighter viewfinder and enhanced DOF control.
Image quality is about the same (great) either way.