Aaargh now I can't decide at all (lenses)

[Braeden]

Quite a few people have suggested the canon 70-200 f/4 L lens as a replacement for the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM that I was/am considering buying.

Since this is mainly for use at UK tracks (for example donnington park next weekend) would the focal length be enough to get decent photos? I know I may not fill the frame with the effective 320mm (200 x 1.6) but will it be enough?

Also, will f/4 at 200mm mean that I shouldn't miss the fact that the lens doesn't have IS?

I'm not sure if I can phrase this correctly so I hope you understand what I mean...

but what is the effective "speed" of a lens with IS at f/5.6? Will it compare to f/4 with no IS?

 

[RobertP]

Can't you compare the range by just setting the sigma that you have to 200mm?

As to lens speed I can't see a problem with the 70-200 F4L. I used mine hand held taking local cricket pictures last summer and had no blurred images from shake. how it might work out for panning I don't know as i have never done any.

In good light there is that L something about images with that lens. In medium to poor light images are still good but don't have the 'wow look at that ' factor.

 

[Steve]

IS is supposed to give between two and three stops of improvement depending on the user and conditions. However give the same equipment to two different "photographers" and you will get different results everytime Does that mean the equipment is faulty or that the skill level of each user is simply different? I think you understand what I am trying to say.

Also please remember that you are comparing two different lenses, one is from Canon's premium, pro range and is optically superb. It has no gismos or additional electronics beyond ultra fast, accurate USM motors giving excellent AF speed and accuracy, the other is basically a £150 lens with excellent IS electronics bolted on, designed to compensate for camera shake. The glass in the two lenses are worlds apart and the 70-200L is not one of Canons best selling and highly regarded lenses for no reason.

If the 200mm reach of the L lens is simply not long enough though, then you may as well not bother as you will always feel as though you are missing the shots. £450 is a lot to pay for some glass to find out later it was a mistake.

HTH

 

[milou]

That's excellent advice from Steve. As in all these situations, is it worth considering renting the lens to see how you get on with it? I guess if you're then happy with it but would like some extra reach, try a x1.4 convertor.

 

[Steve]

I have the 70-200L lens and also have a Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4 convertor that I use with it to get extra reach. This combination works excellently together and I have never been disapointed with the results it has given if that helps at all.