I didn't need the depth of field nor the speed of the 2.8 especially
at the much higher cost.



Just as I thought...you don't have a good grasp of lens properties. I'm
NOT trolling here or trying to win an arguement (for once!). The only
reason not to buy the 2.8 is if you can't afford it...and that's a fine
excuse that I have NO problem with. Not everyone is prepared to spend
big on good glass.....
So here are the MANY reasons why that 2.8 is worth the money...

1) Bokeh....the quality of out of focus elements in the for and
background. This is often considered one of the most important elements
of a good photo.

Here is a shot showing good bokeh...courtesy of my 1700 dollar 70-200VR
lens...
http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/asianaw.jpg

2) Sharpness....All optics sharpen up around F8, but the Canon 2.8 is
nearly tack sharp wide open! You can have your cake and eat it too with
this lens. Your F4 is not terribly good until you get past 5.6.

3) Action....ever shoot moving objects? F-2.8 also allows for faster
shutter speeds in ALL conditions

4) DOF....well, anyone who says this is not a key element of
photography is really full of it. Fast glass means more control over
COA (center of attention) in your shots.

5) Build....the 2.8 is built better, and has better resale value. It's
"worth" buying if you can afford it. Otherwise anything less is just
cheating yourself.

6) You do realize that the 70-200 2.8 is an IS lens? This means sharper
shots at slower shutter speeds with less light (2-3 stops!)! While not
quite as good as my 70-200VR it's still an amazing hunk of glass. Get a
good deal on one and you can ebay it for just about what you paid.

Ozzy, you have a good camera, with so-so lenses. If you owned that 2.8
you'd quickly learn that the F4 was a waste of money. Do you own any
fast glass?


RB
35s5
NY