Canon 70-200 L IS dilemma

Adex

Adex

Adex

Associate
Joined
26 Dec 2004
Posts
345
In a recent thread i announced i was gonna treat myself for xmas but have since decided to completely change tack and go for a Canon 40D.

Now my dilemma is this (and ive read a thousand reviews and agonised for hours on end over this lol)...

Do i go for the EF70-200 f2.8 L IS USM

or

do i go for the EF70-200mm f4.0L IS


There seems to be so many pros and cons

1: Much heavier f2.8 model

2: Extra stop of IS on the f4

3: Faster lens (f2.8)

4: F4 a little sharper

5: F2.8 more expensive

Ive got the money available for either of these lenses but just cannot make a firm decision, every time i think `yup get the 2.8 for freezing action ` etc i change my mind by the next day lol.

I`m mainly intending to shoot `lifestyle` portraits \ model shoots (outdoors) \ wildlife (with a 1.4 tc) and zoo shots.

Now, as mentioned above the f2.8 is considerably heavier so im wondering if anyone has any experience of walking around with this lens for some time ?




Note: I took note of some of the replies from my previous post and am going for a much higher quality lens to go with the body so thanks for those who replied. Change of tack re Nikon body/ Canon was that i feel Canon have a wider range of leneses available


Thanks in advance
 
I went with the f/4 ias it was lighter, fitted ni my bag and, more importantly, was affordable.

If budget no issue, then the f/2.8 would seem to be the logical choice, though the f/4 does appear to be noticably sharper wide open.

Check out the comparisons here.
 
A dilemma indeed,

The 40D handles high ISOs very well, so if you needed to crank up the ISO using the f/4 you would still get decent results.

The f/4 IS is widely regarded as being sharper than the f/2.8 IS

You may have the cash, but can you really justify a difference in £300-£400 for 1 stop?

If you plan on using a teleconverter in the future, or if you'll be shooting mostly indoor or in low light I'd say go with the f/2.8

If not, then I'd say go with the f/4 and a 580EX mkII

You've also just missed the end of the most recent cashback promotion, whereby a rebate of £125 (iirc) could be claimed against both of the lenses in question
 
Adex said:
Ive got the money available for either of these lenses but just cannot make a firm decision, every time i think `yup get the 2.8 for freezing action ` etc i change my mind by the next day lol.

I`m mainly intending to shoot `lifestyle` portraits \ model shoots (outdoors) \ wildlife (with a 1.4 tc) and zoo shots.
Click to expand...

Unless your shooting reasonably sized mammals you'll no doubt find the 70-200 too short for most wildlife, especially birds, but you'll be ok at the Zoo.
A 1.4x on the front isn't the best option for this lens <lose AF?>, if you're even considering using converters that pretty much means you really need the 2.8 to get the best results..
 
V-Spec said:
A 1.4x on the front isn't the best option for this lens <lose AF?>
Click to expand...

Is this with the F4 non-IS?

Also on another note if you buy one and are not happy you could always sell it on Ebay and upgrade you wont get what you paid for it but these lenses do hold there value well.
 
I've got the f/2.8 and it is simply incredible. The speed of focus is superb, the build quality brilliant and the IS excellent. Buying from kerso, I got the lens for under a grand and it was money well spent. I also got a 2x to go with it to give me a 400 f/5.6 and with it on it's still pin sharp.
 
Thanks for the replies lads !

Typical of me to miss the canon rebate grr, how often do these occur ?

Another thing i just remembered that is steering me towards the 2.8 is that it will

be better for portraits due to the shallower DoF. I know people have done great

portraiture with the f4 but having looked at loads of images from it, it seems

that the bokeh is a little distracting when the background has certain shades of

green. I`m sure i didnt imagine that.


As someone else mentioned the likelyhood of shooting indoors in low light, i`d

also love to be able to take my chosen lens to small gigs and try out new

stuff, so im guessing again the 2.8 would help there?

But as someone else rightly said, there is a big price difference for just one

stop and can an amateur justify that ?! (every answer seems to lead to

another question arrgh)


I know tbh im expecting this lens to be able to do everything i want and in

truth it will have limited applications for things such as wildlife. I was also

looking at the 100-400 but that wouldn`t be so good for portraits etc.




Sorry, im waffling. Please keep the replies coming :-)
 
A.N.Other said:
I've got the f/2.8 and it is simply incredible. The speed of focus is superb, the build quality brilliant and the IS excellent. Buying from kerso, I got the lens for under a grand and it was money well spent. I also got a 2x to go with it to give me a 400 f/5.6 and with it on it's still pin sharp.
Click to expand...

Thats where im getting the whole shebang from once i make a decision :-)
 
Adex said:
Thats where im getting the whole shebang from once i make a decision :-)
Click to expand...
Agreed... he seems to do some good deals! :)

As per your weight and handling question i would say the 2.8 will be fine. My sigma is a heavy lens but is not so stupidly weighty that i cannot easily carry it around all day.

The one thing i would suggest is a decent camera strap - i use an optech one and it spreads and supports the weight very nicely without hurting my neck.

gt
 
a few years ago I ogonised with the same decision (though over the non IS lenses).

I went with the F4, as after trying an F2.8 for a week or so found it was just too heavy to use as a sensible travel lens. I would not underestimate just how heavy the 2.8's are if you are out for full day.

the F4 will af with a x1.4 on a 40D, as the maximum aperture will only frop to 5.6, it won't use af with a x2 though (well not a canon one, and a non-canon might have a spot of bother).

faced with your decision now, I would almost certainly go for the F4 IS (you'll almost have enough change to buy a 17-55 2.8 IS as well), though I would recommend trying them out if you can.
 
Panzerbjorn said:
+1

You will only find a shot that you're after and won't be able to get because f/4 wont be fast enough and then kick yourself for not buying the 2.8.

Panzer
Click to expand...

Or buy the much more expensive f2.8 version then find yourself stopping down to f4 more often to regain sharpness (that is not as good as the f4's sharpness wide open) :D

Of course I'm joking :D. Mainly depends on whether or not you need that extra stop enough to justify it, if you shoot lowlight regularly, go for it.

The differerence in sharpness between the 2 is in fact minimal, but the low shutter speed you need can be significant at times.
 
Many very valid points made, thanks everyone. Certianly gives me something to think about. I think i`ll end up going for the 2.8 altho my main concern is the weight so will go and see if they have those 2 models in the high street so i can try em out.

Conversely, the comment by aztec has also really got me thinking re having almost enough saved to get the 17-55 2.8 IS as well which would be nice :-)

However i dont wont to be kicking myself when in low light and struggling to get a usuable shutter speed, sure i can up the iso and will no doubt still need to up the iso in some situations even with the 2.8 but that extra stop is likely to come in very handy.

Thanks all :-)
 
Called the overpriced high street store today and suprise suprise they dont have them in stock!

Another thought that has occured to me is that F4 is likely to struggle within a a forest (overhead canopy blocking light etc).

The reason i mention the F4 is that ive worked out i can afford to get the 70-200 f4 & 24-70 f2.8 whereas if i go for the 70-200 f2.8 im left a little short for the 24-70 :-)


Its never ending isnt it lol !
 
Adex said:
Called the overpriced high street store today and suprise suprise they dont have them in stock!
Click to expand...

I assume you mean the blue shirt brigade? If so, you need to go into a busy ish shop to see something like that in the flesh, a small town store won't carry it as there just isnt the demand for £1k lenses. I'm the manager of the halifax branch and the most expensive lenses we carry day to day are about £600, but at the Trafford Centre branch where i worked prior to this one we regularily had 2 or 3 70-200 F2.8s and 100-400s and everything below
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom