70-200 F4 L as a walk about telephoto?

mrbez

mrbez

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,034
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey Guys,

I am looking for a telephoto lens as my next purchase, but I am unsure what to do.

I am thinking that ideally I would like a Sigma 150-500 or a Canon 100-400 at some point in the future, as I would like to venture into Wildlife / Motorsport photography.

However, is it worth buying a 70-200 F4L as a general purpose?

For those of you that have bought one of these, and then one of the bigger lenses above, did you keep the 70-200?

Is it worth me buying this, or is there something else that may be just as sharp?

Thanks.
 
Hey there,

Whilst I dont own any larger than the 70-200 (I have the 2.8), I find the 24-105 a better walkaround lens. Have you considered something like this? Or even the 24-70, which will cover the lower end of your spectrum.

When I had the f4 (IS) it was a cracking lens though, very sharp.
 
Sorry, I already have a Tamron 17-50 for walk about, but 50 is my longest focal length, so I can't really venture past that length, hence why I am looking for something else.

I don't really fancy a 24-105 on my 7D.
 
Suppose it depends what you want to walkabout taking pictures of and that's not meant to sound stroppy

If its general street stuff reckon it would be too long especially on a crop, hard to advise unless we know what interests you

Personally find my 17-55mm is on the camera most and the 70-200 considerably less so, but that's me

Still got a 400mm for wildlife stuff and don't think the 70-200mm is anything like long enough, reckon you might be better off with the 100-400mm unless you have a need for the shorter zoom
 
One of the reasons that I was looking at this lens was to allow me to try some street photography, more so candids etc, as I do not feel confident using a 50mm lens, and I doubt a 100-400 would go unnoticed on the street!
 
My 70-200 is my walk about lens 95% of the time.
 
mrbez said:
One of the reasons that I was looking at this lens was to allow me to try some street photography, more so candids etc, as I do not feel confident using a 50mm lens, and I doubt a 100-400 would go unnoticed on the street!
Click to expand...

Trust me 70-200 dont go unnoticed either.
 
My choice if you want light and discreet would be the Canon 55-250mm, great lens for the money and stabilised too
 
I owned the 55-250 in the past, and I did think that it was a great lens.

However, I can't help but think that the 70-200 must be better IQ?
 
70-200 on a cropper would make a very long walkaround lens!
What about a 70-300 IS USM? A lot cheaper, a lot less in your face, and pretty decent IQ - not up there with L zooms but not bad either.
Ps - 70-300 and 55-250 IS are almost neck and neck Id say, having owned both, albeit on different formats. Id say the 70-300 is better... but not by much and definitely not worth the extra £ over the 55-250 IMO.
Draw backs of 70-300 - zoom extends, 200-300mm range is flaky wide open, it is quite long even when retracted (didnt fit in my bag, when 55-250 did easily), more expensive. I also found the IS system to be clunky and noisy...
But the IQ of it is slightly better than the 55-250 but nowhere near 70-200 F4 / IS
 
Last edited:
I don't think I have made it clear.

I don't want it as a walk about lens, but more as a walk about telephoto. For times when 50mm is just too short.
 
Yes the 70-200 is better, can only comment on the F/4 IS that I have albeit its considerably heavier and more expensive than something like the 55-250mm

Always something like the newish Canon 15-85mm to consider or even a Sigma 50-150mm, plenty of choice and also depends on how much you want to spend too
 
I think I'd say it depends when you find you need more length:

If it's because there's something further away that you want to shoot or small details, the 70-200 will serve you well

If it's just because you go into a spree of portraits etc. then I'd say go with the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8
 
The 70-200 f4 was my only lens for a long time & I was quite happy with it as a walkabout, only when I wanted to take a landscape/ sunset did I find it too long.

I've since bought the Sigma 150-500, but have kept the 70-200 for those times when I don't need so much length. These days that means portraits etc, but I did use it for wildlife previously, you just need to get very close, unless you're shooting deer or horses etc.

I doubt you'd be dissapointed with it, I doubt anyone ever has been!
 
I've always been very happy with my 70-200 f4. I think since I've got it it's spent a lot more time on my camera than the kit lens.

Great for taking photos of people without getting in their faces. I've used it loads to take pictures of my son without him noticing (he's 20 months and likes to play with the camera, lol)
 
I have the 70-200f4 non IS and the 100-400. The 100-400 is a fair bit heavier and certainly larger. When I went to Prague I primarily used the 70-200 bit I prefer the shooting from afar approach, unlike most on here.

I love my 70-200 f4, but it is white and therefore does get noticed (I wish it was black). It is otherwise comparatively light, and generally 'feels' nice to use.

Since I got my 85mm f1.8 and 5d I've not used it much, but I need to start again (with a 5d it would of course be less 'long' than on your 7d - I've primarily used it only on my 40d so far though).

Get one second hand, you'll love it and if you don't you can sell it for the the same price.
 
jerry12953 said:
If its for a walkabout, you'd need the IS version, wouldn't you?

It's about £400 more expensive......
Click to expand...

Depends what he's shooting.

If he's set on the focal range and wants it as a walkabout, to be honest the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS isn't much more than the standard f/4L, is only a little less sharp but in exchange is almost infinitely more versatile with the aperture and OS. Admittedly TCs won't work as well but on a walkabout tele there's very little use for those, and the f/4L gets very slow very quickly on TCs.
 
If I pack light I will usually stick in my 18-50 siggy and my 70-200 f4L. Its relatively light, not too huge (this is all for the non-IS lens) and fits in the bag I have with the camera, siggy, flash and a couple of batteries and memory cards. I would highly recommend it as a general telephoto. It performs a very different job to the 100-400 and 150-500 as it is so much smaller. Its also bloody sharp!
 
I have the 70-200 L USM (no IS) and I absolutely love this lens. Even without the IS, I can get really good results handheld, where you might reasonably expect camerashake there is none. I have it on my 450D all the time and I carry the camera with me everyday just in case that elusive million dollar shot should ever present itsel!
 
I have 70-200 and 24-105, a majority of time the latter is my walk about lens.
 
I use both the 70-200 and 100-400. I think they are very different lenses. I use the 70-200 as a walk about 20% of the time but will take the longer lens only if i shoot wildlife, airshows
 
I've got the 70-200 f4L non-IS, it's luuurvely :D

And I'm on the same kit as you, 7D with 17-50mm f2.8. The 7D and 70-200 goes together very nicely indeed, feels well balanced hand-held too.
 
I recently picked up the 70-200mm f4 (non is) and i haven't got rid of my 55-250mm is, so i might do some comparison shots tomorrow on my 450d.
 
craig.walton2 said:
I recently picked up the 70-200mm f4 (non is) and i haven't got rid of my 55-250mm is, so i might do some comparison shots tomorrow on my 450d.
Click to expand...

Will you do that and share them?
 
mrbez said:
One of the reasons that I was looking at this lens was to allow me to try some street photography, more so candids etc, as I do not feel confident using a 50mm lens, and I doubt a 100-400 would go unnoticed on the street!
Click to expand...

Trust me. dont use a tele lens for street photography. use wide angle lens mate like all the best famous street togs
 
When I do street photography I use two lenses, my 17-50mm for generation wide are coverage but if I'm concentrating on specific things like I will be when I go and shoot a. The Edinburgh festival then its the 70-200 f4 L all the way. It is so good at capturing close detail from a distance where being go someone's face is just not permissible for what ever reason.

It's a versatile lens that works great go many situations. Hell I use mine for landscape and portrait work too.
 
I have taken 6 shots to compare the Canon 55-250mm with the 70-200mm L (non IS). The set is here
 
Thanks Craig.

I'm on my phone atm, so can't really check them. However, what are your thoughts on them?

Is the 70-200 much better?
 
mrbez said:
Thanks Craig.

I'm on my phone atm, so can't really check them. However, what are your thoughts on them?

Is the 70-200 much better?
Click to expand...
This might be a little controversial but I can’t see much difference. Yes the 70-200mm L focuses faster but I don’t get that ‘blown away’ feeling that people keep talking about. There are probably several flaws with my comparison tests as I have never done one before, but like I said, I fail to get that ‘wow’ factor.

I also have the raw files (.CR2) if anyone wants a closer look.
 
I have a canon 70-200 f4 non is and it's fantastic although as others have said it is a tad long for a walk around that's why I'm looking at getting a 17-40
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top