70-200mm advice?!

Joshwain

Joshwain

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,379
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I haven't posted for a while, so there's probably a few new faces since I was last active!

Anyway, I'm looking for some advice seeing as I can't make my mind up and as a student, money is an issue. If there was no such thing as money, I'd be getting the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II in the next 5 minutes - but the tories rule... I'm not a banker and I have a massive student loan.

So, the lenses within my budget...
I can afford the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (non-os) OR the Canon 70-200mm f/4L (non-is)

It's mainly for equestrian and some football, but there's also a chance I'll be shooting some indoor sports like volleyball, where the light isn't great! My worry isn't so much having to ramp up my ISO for the smaller aperture, but more the focus speed in lower-lit environments. Obviously the Canon lens is better built and will probably be a bit sharper, but would it cope indoors?

It'd be great to hear from people who own/have used both!!

Cheers,
Josh.
 
I shoot a lot of indoor equestrian. 2.8 is a must.
 
Would the f/4L really struggle indoors?

I think that would be my choice if I was purely shooting outside, but there's a chance I'll be shooting volleyball sometimes.

edit: indoor volleyball, I should add
 
Looking at the quality difference, I think I've decided to go for the Canon 70-200 f4

I could maybe afford the Canon 70-200 f2.8 if I found a 12 month 0% finance plan, but it's basically twice the price and I'm not going to be making money from my photography. At this stage, I don't think I can put such a high value on one stop of light...

L lenses kinda seem to retain their value too so I could always sell and upgrade when I have the money...
 
I have the canon 70-200l f4 and i love it , tbh i couldn`t afford the 2.8 and it is so heavy as well
 
Last edited:
I would agree money no object, 2.8 however looking at the market, they start from £550/£600 without IS for the Mk1, as I'm sure you're aware. I have seen some incredibly impressive photos taken indoors with the F4 IS. I think that would be a decent lens, if you get one second hand, and you use it a few times and it really isn't ideal and 2.8 is definitely required, then you probably wouldn't loose on it?
 
Ashburner said:
I would agree money no object, 2.8 however looking at the market, they start from £550/£600 without IS for the Mk1, as I'm sure you're aware. I have seen some incredibly impressive photos taken indoors with the F4 IS. I think that would be a decent lens, if you get one second hand, and you use it a few times and it really isn't ideal and 2.8 is definitely required, then you probably wouldn't loose on it?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking, L lenses seem to hold value most of the time - or at least whenever I've looked. So I'm thinking go with the f4 and possibly sell it and upgrade to the f2.8 when I can afford it... if I think it'd be worth it.
 
I had a go at shooting volley ball a while back and would consider f2.8 a minimum. Typical setting for the sports hall I shot in were SS 1/640 - 1/800 iso 6400 and higher, f2.8. Given this the change to f4 would result in even higher iso numbers. hth
 
RJL2005 said:
I had a go at shooting volley ball a while back and would consider f2.8 a minimum. Typical setting for the sports hall I shot in were SS 1/640 - 1/800 iso 6400 and higher, f2.8. Given this the change to f4 would result in even higher iso numbers. hth
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd definitely go for the Canon f2.8 if I could afford it... but I've done some research and the Sigma 2.8 looks awful in comparison to the Canon f4 at 200mm

Ashburner said:
Also what camera are you using the lens on?
Click to expand...

7D :)
 
This is seriously starting to hurt my head ahah!

I've kinda decided against the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 now. So that leaves the Canon f4, right?

Well now I'm fighting the urge of justifying the extra £250ish for the Canon f2.8!

Would I use it enough? Why would I pay so much when I'm not making money from it? But it'd be great! No, you need to save up!

Follow the devil or listen to the angel? :p
 
Personally I'd buy one on the sigma 2.8's careful research and purchasing required as there are various different versions available of differing quality!

In your case I'd buy the canon 2.8 as your clearly going to at some point and it will save mucking about and loosing money on re-sales.
 
I had the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro II. Very good lens and was able to take some pretty decent shots with it. It was a touch soft wide open, but very sharp at f/5.6. If I were buying a 70-200mm again, I'd save up for a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

Here's a couple from the Sigma, the photobucket folder has a number of test shots.


 
The main thing putting me off the Sigma 2.8 is the quality at 200mm...

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II at 200mm f4:
2008-07-16_20-03-18.jpg


Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM at 200mm f4:
2009-05-19_06-50-55.jpg
 
Last edited:
Buy my f/4 IS from the classifieds, see how you go and if not happy sell up at no loss and get the f/2.8, sorted!!
 
crofter said:
The Tamron 70-200 2.8 gets good reviews, a couple of mint ones at MPB,
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...nses/tamron-70-200mm-f28-di-macro-canon-fit-2
Click to expand...

I got excited at the quality then, until I did some digging and found the AF isn't too good.

This one bloke sounded really unhappy with it:

tijuana taxi said:
Buy my f/4 IS from the classifieds, see how you go and if not happy sell up at no loss and get the f/2.8, sorted!!
Click to expand...

The IS version is out of my price range unfortunately, or at least for how much I need IS. There's a couple of f/2.8 models (non-IS, obviously) on eBay for around £595 so if I were to spend over £500, I'd probably go for one of those :)
 
Joshwain said:
Would the f/4L really struggle indoors?

I think that would be my choice if I was purely shooting outside, but there's a chance I'll be shooting volleyball sometimes.

edit: indoor volleyball, I should add
Click to expand...

I just covered some basketball with the 70-200 f4 L IS and it was fine. Definitely need the IS version, of course. It maybe be one stop slower than the f 2.8, but it is also half the weight. The 2.8 is a monster.

Also, the AF and general IQ on the IS version is noticeably better than the non-IS.

Edit: Forgot to mention. I just upgraded from the non-IS version because it was staying in the bag far too often and I need the extra reach.
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
I just covered some basketball with the 70-200 f4 L IS and it was fine. Definitely need the IS version, of course. It maybe be one stop slower than the f 2.8, but it is also half the weight. The 2.8 is a monster.
Click to expand...

Good lord ahah, I'm a disaster! I presumed I wouldn't need IS for sports, seeing as you're shooting at a high shutter speed to freeze the action?
 
IS does nothing to minimise blur due to subject movement.
 
tijuana taxi said:
But it does give you sharper photos at slower shutter speeds
Click to expand...
If the subject isn't moving. So might be good for bowls, darts or snooker, though I'm not sure if they are sports or pastimes... ;)
 
Regardless of the sport or pastime and whether the subject is moving or not IS gives an advantage at slower shutter speeds hand held when blur due to shake may occur
 
tijuana taxi said:
Regardless of the sport or pastime and whether the subject is moving or not IS gives an advantage at slower shutter speeds hand held when blur due to shake may occur
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from, but does the high shutter speed to compensate for the fast moving subject not also compensate for camera shake?
 
You cannot always pick an ideal shutter speed, law of reciprocity governs it and many times you have no choice in using a slower speed than may be desired
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
You cannot always pick an ideal shutter speed, law of reciprocity governs it and many times you have no choice in using a slower speed than may be desired
Click to expand...

True! You can ramp up the ISO but that's never pretty :p

-

Anyway, I think I've decided!

I could just about afford the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II... but I'm not going for that as it would practically soak up all my savings! I'm not going to be profiting from my photography and I'm a student, so I can't justify it. Similarly, I can't justify the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for the same reason that it would soak up 75% of what I have.

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 was apparently released in March 1995, when I was 6 months old!! So I've now gone off that too :p

The 70-200 f/4 IS - personally I don't value the IS enough for what I'll be using it for, at £150 more.

The 70-200 f/4 - yes it might have been released when I was 5 years old, but it would only cost me £300-£350 and isn't going to depreciate in value in a matter of seconds. It's not guaranteed that I will be shooting indoor sports... the majority will be outside and summer is of course on its way.

I think I'm going to go with the f/4 version and sell it on if I'm not happy, to upgrade when I have the funds. Maybe one day I will make money from it all, meaning I can talk myself into the f/2.8 IS II!! :p
 
I have the f4 is version it is a great lens and trave poo s the world with me. My main reason for getting it was it was lighter for traveling and to be honest it is one stop different.
 
Joshwain said:
Good lord ahah, I'm a disaster! I presumed I wouldn't need IS for sports, seeing as you're shooting at a high shutter speed to freeze the action?
Click to expand...

You absolutely need IS for sports. It's not always sunny and you'll sometimes be indoors.
 
Joshwain said:
True! You can ramp up the ISO but that's never pretty :p

-

Anyway, I think I've decided!

I could just about afford the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II... but I'm not going for that as it would practically soak up all my savings! I'm not going to be profiting from my photography and I'm a student, so I can't justify it. Similarly, I can't justify the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for the same reason that it would soak up 75% of what I have.

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 was apparently released in March 1995, when I was 6 months old!! So I've now gone off that too :p

The 70-200 f/4 IS - personally I don't value the IS enough for what I'll be using it for, at £150 more.

The 70-200 f/4 - yes it might have been released when I was 5 years old, but it would only cost me £300-£350 and isn't going to depreciate in value in a matter of seconds. It's not guaranteed that I will be shooting indoor sports... the majority will be outside and summer is of course on its way.

I think I'm going to go with the f/4 version and sell it on if I'm not happy, to upgrade when I have the funds. Maybe one day I will make money from it all, meaning I can talk myself into the f/2.8 IS II!! :p
Click to expand...

I seriously recommend you get the version with IS, it makes the lens so much more useful.
 
ive got the minolta 70210f4 beercan, and the sigma 70200f2.8 hsm non os one, and with coloured stuff you wont notice the sharpness difference as much as you would think, as bayer sensors get softer on coloured stuff as they are a colour sieve.
copy variation also matters

that extra 2.8 will help with focus speed/ability, but then again the sigma's tend to be weaker at focusing as they reverse engineer that

id try and get something second hand and see how you get on tbh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top