Canon 70-200mm

clv101

clv101

clv101

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,962
Location
Bristol
So there are a few:

70-200mm f/4L 705g
70-200mm f/4L IS 760g
70-200mm f/2.8L 1,310g
70-200mm f/2.8L IS 1,590g

To be honest the weight of the f/2.8 rules it out, I simply would carry it around enough to make it worthwhile. The choice is between the two f/4 lenses. There's £40 and £45 cash back on them.

A very brief search suggests prices of £375 and £650 respectively before discount.

Question is, how much is the IS worth? My gut reaction is that IS is a nice to have, but not worth a couple hundred quid!
2nd question, are there any other non-Canon options that cover a similar range, weigh under 1kg, cost well under £500 and offer similar image quality?
 
sigma F/2.8 version is a good option for that price range, i have the non-IS 70-200 F/4L and it's a cracking lens and i doubt i'd need IS on it as i only use it for panning shots where IS isn't really useful imo.
 
Most 70-200 f/2.8 is over 1kg including the Sigma (1.3kg).

The 70-200 f/4 IS, seems very nice in low light and it is meant to be sharper then the NON-IS version.
Spending extra £300 on IS version really justifies the cost?? I would rather get 85mm f/1.8 for those indoor / dim light shots.
 
Remember we want f2.8 for lovely blurred backgrounds, not just low-light capability...

I've seen some fantastic portraits with the Sigma, and the f2.8 is also fantastic for gig photography. You don't need to be in the pit :P
 
Note that the F4 IS also has better optics than the non-IS version, it takes better quality images (not that the non-IS is bad!) as well as having IS. And once you've tried IS you wont want to be without it.
 
Last edited:
The weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS isn't so huge that it really causes a problem for me. When I did the TalkPhotography walk around of Oxford, I had it on my 350D with battery grip for about 7 hours and it was fine.

Between the f/4s, I'd probably be going for the IS version. IS really is amazingly useful and although this is something you won't fully understand until you've used it a bit, you'll never go back. The ability to compose shots properly is a major thing, without having to take a load to ensure that camera shake doesn't effect the composition.

You can also get the f/4 IS for £605 from Kerso, so with the discount, that's £560, which is a bargain not to be missed. I've bought over £1500 of kit from him and would fully trust him with my money.
 
Also the F4.0L IS version has 2 IS settings, one for low light photography where flash isn't an option and also motorsports for panning etc.

I would also recommend Kerso with buying my new kit from him last week, i collected in my case but the process from start to finish was excellent. Will be going back to him later in the year for more L glass.

SCM
 
for the 70-200mm f/4, you really ought to get the IS version, because otherwise you'll have issues getting high enough shutter speeds to eliminate camera-shake at the 200mm end of things.
 
Aod said:
for the 70-200mm f/4, you really ought to get the IS version, because otherwise you'll have issues getting high enough shutter speeds to eliminate camera-shake at the 200mm end of things.
Click to expand...
Agreed!

Also, it must be said that the 70-200mm f/4 IS is generally accepted as the sharpest of the 70-200's.

For the money and considering its size and the fact it's a 'relatively' lightweight lens it's a great piece of kit.

If you don't mind weight and want f/2.8 then the Sigma (mentioned above as an alternative) is a truly great lens. I bought one to replace my Canon f/4 and it was a very noticeable upgrade. Yes it's a little heavy but you quickly get used to the initial shock.

To add, the non-macro is usually cheaper and also regarded as the better of Sigma's two 70-200mm lenses.

Might be worth a look.

gt
 
ive had a 70-200 2.8 and now have the 70-200 f4 IS

the f2.8 was extremely sharp, infact it was as sharp as a prime, but it was quite heavy
the f4 IS is also very sharp but slightly less so than the 2.8 i had, but its very very light and the IS comes in very usefull
 
I think the 70-200 F4 and F2.8 are by far the sharpest zooms canon make, I have the F4 IS version and its great, I really struggle to think of ways they can improve it to be honest, the switches on the side are also far better than that on any of the Canon big primes which are easily knocked..
 
I phoned up a camera store yesterday to order then 2.8 IS and then suddenly changed my mind for the F4 then at the last moment decided sod it and changed to the 2.8 again! I have only used the F4 non IS before in a shop and the sample I took at F4 handheld was extermely sharp even at 1/40sec !!! so I can only imagine what the 2.8 with IS is going to be like!
 
As i don't use telephoto lenses to often i went for the cheaper 70-200mm none IS & when i do use it i use a long peice of string & stand on it which gives me a couple of stops and works really well.
 
another vote for the sigma over here.

To add, the non-macro is usually cheaper and also regarded as the better of Sigma's two 70-200mm lenses.
Click to expand...

id be interested to know where you heard that. the only difference between the 2 is the amount of elements within the lens and the lower min focus distance on the macro.

ive got the original macro version (the macro II is about now) and its proper crispy sharp. i wouldnt worry about the weight and/or the lack of IS, as said the weight is perfectly adaptable to and i hand hold 99% of the time.
 
Still thinking about the 70-200 lens, but now also considering the Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM at around £350. Longer and with IS, reviews on its quality seem okay.

How does it stack up against the 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS)?
 
For build quality, out of the box colours and image quality control the L is of course better but for the price difference it would make sense as to why it's better :p

5.6 though even with IS at 300MM still is not fast enough in medium lighting conditions!
 
mrk said:
5.6 though even with IS at 300MM still is not fast enough in medium lighting conditions!
Click to expand...


also IS only helps with camera wobble, if you are doing wildlife / motorsport there is no substitute for shutter speed.


*disclaimer

broadly speaking :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom