70-200mm Recommendation ?

Y

Yog

Suspended / Banned
Messages
38
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi.
I'm looking to buy a 70-200mm lens for a Canon 7D and was torn between two options, the Canon f2.8 L USM and the Canon f4.0 IS L USM.

I'm mostly a general photographer, but I've begun leaning towards sports photography lately (rugby). On one hand I'm thinking the f2.8 will help with the poor light I'm likely to experience throughout the winter and help push up the shutter speed, but on the other hand the image stabilisation of the f4.0 seems better for longer shots :shrug:

Any recommendations ?
And before anyone says it, no I can't aford the Canon f2.8 IS L USM :shake: ;)

I did also think about the Sigma APO 70-200 mm f/2.8 II APO EX DG HSM, but it's a long time since I've bought a Sigma, so I'm not sure how it compares to Canon's L series.

Thanks.
 
In reality, the pros and cons are self-evident with the f2.8 being a boon in low light with the disadvantage of a much larger lens and additional weight.

The f4 IS is the sharper lens. The regular f2.8 is not highly rated in the sharpness department.

So, I'd go with the f4IS and pair it with a body with good high iso abilities (5d, 5dII, 7d +).

Graham
 
seems to be a popular question at the moment.

Mark, I recently switched from the f/4 IS to the F/2.8 (non-IS). Both have their own plus points but almost exact in terms of image quality and focus speed/accuracy.

Plus points for the f/4 IS...
Has a very very good IS system - although personally I didn't use it 95% of the time
lightweight - nice and portable.

F/2.8
twice the light throughput of the f/4 - faster shutter
sharp as the f/4 IS at f/4 - but you have a very very good quality at f/2.8

For me, I have absolutely no regrets about the switch. At 200mm you do need steady hands, but for my use, the movement of a subject suits a faster shutter speed rather than a steadier image.

Now with your inclination towards sports (rugby), I can safely say you'll be happier with higher shutter speeds than a steadier image, if it's an issue you can always sit the 70-200 on a monopod :)

Ultimately you won't be disappointed with either in the image quality department.

as for the Sigma... it didn't appeal to me really (although I love it's bigger brother the 120-300)

ads
 
Forget the f4. You'll definitely NEED to low light/focusing ability of a 2.8 lens. IS is something you'll not miss for sport photography.
 
I have the F4, and it is truly a cracking lens

But if you are shooting sport in the winter you need the F2.8 - IS will be of little use at the shutter speeds you need for sport - and to get those speed you need F2.8
 
I asked the sane question a few weeks ago and following all the responses opted for the F4 IS. The main reason being size & weight & thus portability.My thoughts were also that the 7d has great high ISO performance of a couple of stops from my 40D so the combo would be better all round as that higher ISO can be used where necessary without needing the stop on the lens.

Another small observation is I think the IS is amazingly good better certainly than on the F2.8 mki
 
Mmmmm....I spent last Sunday shooting indoor Dressage at F2.8 1/250th ISO 4000-6400
Seriously it's gotta be a 2.8. Don't take a chance. Get it right first time.
 
This is a no brainer. The f4 IS is a very good and sharp lens but why would you need IS for sport photography? The f2.8 is just as sharp and you can use lower ISO settings. You will hardly notice the diffirence in weight.
 
neil_g said:
i escaped the indoor arena sunday and got a bit of daylight for a change :D
Click to expand...

You lucky sod!

I spent all summer trying to convince my local regular spot to move the comps outside and the warmup inside. After lots of umming and arring it's now nearly winter again :(

2.8 all the way. TC's will work better with it too if you have decent light but NEED extra reach.
 
Jaycam said:
This is a no brainer. The f4 IS is a very good and sharp lens but why would you need IS for sport photography? The f2.8 is just as sharp and you can use lower ISO settings. You will hardly notice the diffirence in weight.
Click to expand...

The 2.8 is twice the weight, I thing about 800g more!
 
the 2.8 is still only 1.3kg..

steve.82 said:
You lucky sod!

I spent all summer trying to convince my local regular spot to move the comps outside and the warmup inside. After lots of umming and arring it's now nearly winter again :(

2.8 all the way. TC's will work better with it too if you have decent light but NEED extra reach.
Click to expand...

indeed.. as much as i like not standing out in the rain in the winter, id prefer the light..
 
copperband said:
The 2.8 is twice the weight, I thing about 800g more!
Click to expand...

Oh no! Not 800g :)

Don't forget this is comparing the f4IS vs the f2.8 non IS, so doubt the weight difference will be that much.

Either way, I cope fine with a 1d and the 2.8 IS non-stop for 14hrs+ sometimes without issue.
 
Had both ............... prefer the 2.8 ..... both great lenses though
 
Thanks very much guys.
It really is a help to hear your reasoning behind your recommendations.

Ta.
 
I bought the f4 L IS because it's smaller and lighter than the 2.8, so I knew I'd be more likely to have it with me when I need it. However, for sports I'd have to agree with the posts above - the ability to use faster shutter speeds will be more useful than IS :)
 
steve.82 said:
2.8 all the way. TC's will work better with it too if you have decent light but NEED extra reach.
Click to expand...

Yep. With an x2 you've basically got a 70-400 f/2.8-f/5.6 zoom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top