Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS or not??????

C

Choccy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
150
Edit My Images
Yes
As you can see I'm quite new to the forum and photography also. Had my 450D for a couple of months now and like most keen amateurs here I want to upgrade my glass.

I'm off to Cali for my honeymoon and need a lens that can cope with most stuff from head shots to buildings from a distance and sport maybe and have decided the 70-200mm range will suit the shots I intend to take.

First of all I looked at the F4's but I'm the sort of person who would rather get the best I can afford rather than settle for something nearly there.

My problem is whether I need to pay the £400 extra for IS on an F2.8 lens or should I invest in maybe the non IS and a 50mm F1.4 to give me more coverage. And the ability to get some nice indoors portraits.

Overall I intend to get myself 3-4 lenses to cover the pictures I would like to take and attempt (Portraits, sport, wildlife, gigs and landscapes). Hopefully I'll have some nice glass and kit completed in 2 or 3 years. By which time I'm sure something else will be needed.

Many thanks for reading.

Choccy...
 
For the portraits and buildings IS would be beneficial.
 
Its seems to me that you want to be able to do quite alot with the lens. So if you are looking to use it handheld, then get the IS. But bear in mind you can get the F4 IS version for the same price as the F2.8 non IS.
 
I've been trying to decide between these two of late as well, and was pretty much set on the non IS as if I'm taking photos of still things I'd use a tripod. I'm now thinking about getting a 135 f2L and 200 2.8L instead though. They're both stellar performers and come in together at around the same price as the IS zoom.

I myself am struggling to justify another £400 for IS, and would rather spend that on something else.
 
PD_BARBS said:
Its seems to me that you want to be able to do quite alot with the lens. So if you are looking to use it handheld, then get the IS. But bear in mind you can get the F4 IS version for the same price as the F2.8 non IS.
Click to expand...

So are you saying the F4 IS is better than the F2.8 non IS.

I would also be using a monopod as I'm not all that steady and would use my Giottos 3361 tripod for the sports stuff.

Currently have the 18-55 IS kit lens so don't really know how difference it makes without IS. Would it be a lot.

Choccy...
 
IS is of little use in sports because you'll want to keep the shutter speed high anyway.

If you plan to use a monopod or tripod then IS is of little use there.

It is amazing technology, to be sure. With the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I'm quite happy to be shooting down around 1/30th of a second. But from what you've said about your style, it doesn't sound like good value for your £400.
 
Choccy said:
So are you saying the F4 IS is better than the F2.8 non IS.
Click to expand...

Depends what you want it for. They will be similar in low light conditions, the f/2.8 will be slightly better probably. The f/2.8 also gives a nicer background blur. The f/4 is smaller and lighter though.

I have the f/2.8 and am probably going to sell it soon and upgrade to the IS version.

Bear in mind that the non-IS f/2.8 has no weather sealing (one of the reasons i'm upgrading).
 
A couple of questions. Will the F4's be weatherproof and what exactly does this help with as I don't plan using my camera if it's tipping it down.

Also would the best option be to get the F4 IS over the F2.8 non IS as nost of my shooting will be outdoors and anything in low light will generally be on a tripod.

Choccy...
 
Bear in mind the 2.8 is a very heavy lens. The F4 is much lighter and smaller.

200mm is pretty long on a crop body - from your list of subjects, what about the 24..105 F4L instead (which has IS)?

Also I wouldn't personally bother with the 50mm 1.4, get the 1.8 and put the balance towards the 85mm F1.8 IMO :thumbs:
 
since you say you want the best you can afford, the f2.8 IS would be the best. if you dont need the is then you can switch it off, but will always be available when you need it.
 
pearce_jj said:
.
200mm is pretty long on a crop body - from your list of subjects, what about the 24..105 F4L instead (which has IS)?
Click to expand...

At the shared focal lengths (70-105), the 70-200/2.8 will give far better images at f/4 than you'll get from the 24-105.....price and weight being the currencies for this benefit.

Bob
 
What is the difference weather sealing wise? I thought it was just the seal between the lens and the body that the non IS version lacked...

I was in the same position as you a few weeks back and went for the non IS version working on the basis that I mainly shoot sports.

I've also got the 50mm f1.4 and find they work well together.

Another point to consider - if you are going to the US it may be worth buying the lenses out there...
 
Both IS versions of the 70-200 (f/4 and f/2.8) have weather sealing. The non-IS versions don't.
 
8utters said:
Both IS versions of the 70-200 (f/4 and f/2.8) have weather sealing. The non-IS versions don't.
Click to expand...

What is the weather sealing though? Are the whole lenses totally un weather sealed? Or is it just the connection between the lens and the body that was added for the IS versions?
 
Weather sealing means the lens is suitable for outdoor use under heavy rain. The entire body of the lens or camera is sealed to ensure no water gets in an destroys it.

Odviously it doesn't mean it's waterproof, but weather sealed kit can withstand heavy rain, mud, dirt, dust, sand etc.

Some lenses (like a 17-40 f/4 L for example) need a UV filter attatched to complete the weather sealing.
 
This is such a subjective subject that the only real way to know which lens will suit you best is to spend some time with one.

Since that's not an option for most of us, unless you rent one for bit, you need to wee which matches best the shots you think you'll take.

From what you've said, I don't think it's the 2.8 IS personally.

The "BEST" 70-200 for me is the f4 non IS but of course, your millage could vary. :):)
 
I'm swaying towards the F4 IS as it seems the IS makes more difference than the extra apeture stop. I'm hoping to use it in generally good light. And the weather sealing is a bonus too.

The only down side is you need to buy a tripod mount. Are the ones on eBay any good. Canons tripod mount comes in at £60-70.

Choccy...
 
What I really want to know is the difference in weatherproofing between the two, does the non IS have no weather sealing at all? Or does the IS version get the weather sealing box ticked because it has the rubber grommet round the lens mount, which will create a seal with the TCs/1D or 5DmkII bodies.

As I only have a 20D the sealing to the body isn't important as the body doesn't have the seal to match up to it, but the seal of the controls etc is important...

I guess some sort of technical diagram would be needed to see that though...
 
Choccy,

When I weighed this decision up last year I eventually plumbed for the F4 IS. My heart said get the F2.8 IS but then my head said "yes but you'll be carrying this thing around derbyshire most of the time". The benefit being now that I carry the lens with me all day as it's in my work rucksack (latop etc). If I'd have gone for the 2.8 IS I doubt I'd carry it everywhere. Therefore if you're travelling with it you might want to consider weight being the prime decision maker?

I've just added the 100-400mm IS (which is also v.heavy and thus doesn't get carried daily) for the extra reach for when I need it and otherwise I'm happy with my kit as a whole.

Would I upgrade to the 2.8 IS... probably but then I think I'd also keep the F4 version as well!
 
NathanJT said:
Choccy,

When I weighed this decision up last year I eventually plumbed for the F4 IS. My heart said get the F2.8 IS but then my head said "yes but you'll be carrying this thing around derbyshire most of the time". The benefit being now that I carry the lens with me all day as it's in my work rucksack (latop etc). If I'd have gone for the 2.8 IS I doubt I'd carry it everywhere. Therefore if you're travelling with it you might want to consider weight being the prime decision maker?

I've just added the 100-400mm IS (which is also v.heavy and thus doesn't get carried daily) for the extra reach for when I need it and otherwise I'm happy with my kit as a whole.

Would I upgrade to the 2.8 IS... probably but then I think I'd also keep the F4 version as well!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. I would probably go for the 300mm F4 as well so I will only want one heavy lens to carry.

I would ideally like these 3. 24-105mm F4, 70-200mm F4 and 300mm F4. Think that would cover most things except gig photography which I would probably get a prime for.

Choccy...
 
I had the 70-200 F2.8. I liked it but it was heavy and it's quite an old design (1990's). In the end I traded it for the 70-200 F4IS. It's much easier to travel with, I've taken nice handheld night landscape shots with it thanks to the IS, and it's sharp.

If I had had the money at the time I would've gone for the F2.8IS version, but it's a big step. Sometimes in low light one stop of light wouldn't help you get the shutter speed you want anyway. A pro body with good high iso performance is what I'd like ideally!

But buying the 70-200 F4IS gave me an excuse to buy a fast prime, so I got a 85mm F1.8. In the light I was shooting in last weeknd I the F2.8 would've been too slow anyway
 
tarmac_chaser said:
I had the 70-200 F2.8. I liked it but it was heavy and it's quite an old design (1990's). In the end I traded it for the 70-200 F4IS. It's much easier to travel with, I've taken nice handheld night landscape shots with it thanks to the IS, and it's sharp.

If I had had the money at the time I would've gone for the F2.8IS version, but it's a big step. Sometimes in low light one stop of light wouldn't help you get the shutter speed you want anyway. A pro body with good high iso performance is what I'd like ideally!

But buying the 70-200 F4IS gave me an excuse to buy a fast prime, so I got a 85mm F1.8. In the light I was shooting in last weeknd I the F2.8 would've been too slow anyway
Click to expand...

Thanks for that advice. I would be looking at an 85mm F1.8 for indoor shooting too. How good are these in low light situations compared to the F4's.

I would like to pair the 70-200 F4 with the 24-105 F4 for general use and add a prime for when low light work is required. Also looking at the 300mm F4 IS in the future unless they bring out an IS version of the 400mm F4.

Choccy...
 
Had the lens a day now and love how smooth the focus is. And the IS on this a different beast from the kit lens.

When you look through the lens and the image is shaking you half press and wait for everything to calm down. Truly amazing. Makes me want more L.

Choccy...
 
I would personally get the F2.8 NON IS, and with the left over change, try to get a canon 10-22, and a 50mmf1.4 (Second two 2nd hand), you MAY be able to get all that for the price of a 70-200 f2.8IS new.
 
Ant said:
I would personally get the F2.8 NON IS, and with the left over change, try to get a canon 10-22, and a 50mmf1.4 (Second two 2nd hand), you MAY be able to get all that for the price of a 70-200 f2.8IS new.
Click to expand...

I think the OP went for the F4 IS, which is a good decision, because he now has the extra to get a 24-105mm.
 
Yeah I'm thinking the 24-105mm F4 will be a brilliant walkaround lens. I know the 24-70mm F2.8 is faster but I would prefer the extra range and IS.

How much actual difference is there in the performance of these 2 lenses anyway. Would also like a gig lens but can't decide between 50mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.8. Think the 85 would also be good for sport too.

Choccy...
 
If you are shooting sports primarily or exclusively, the non-IS version would be a good choice. I would probably use this lens on a monopod most of the time.

However, if you are like me, and want to shoot a variety of subjects hand held; the IS model would be the better choice.

In fact, I can actually hand-hold my f/4L IS lens in a lower light level than I can hand-hold an f/2.8L (non-IS) lens - despite the one stop advantage between f/2.8 and f/4.

As an example, I can hand hold my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and achieve nearly 100% sharp images fully extended using 1/60 second. The f/2.8 equivalent would be 1/120 second and I could not achieve 100% sharp images shooting hand held at 1/120 second with the lens cranked out all the way. The 1/120 second at f/2.8 is the exposure equivalent of 1/60 second at f/4.

I can hand hold my f/4L IS lens fully extended at 1/30 second and get, while not 100% sharp images, a respectable percentage of keepers. I sincerely doubt if I could get any sharp images at 200mm using the f/2.8 equivalent which is 1/60 second.

Additionally, it is easier for me to hand hold the f/4L models than it is to hand hold the f/2.8 models because of the extra size and bulk of the wider aperture lenses.

The f/4L IS lens is lighter in weight, in fact; I can carry the f/4L IS lens and an extra 1.6x body at the same weight as the f/2.8 model alone. I carry my f/4L IS lens everywhere as half of a two lens and two camera setup in conjunction with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on the second body.
 
rpcrowe you are so right. This is what swayed me towards the F4 as the size of the F2.8 would have meant taking a monopod everywhere.

If I'm going to take a monopod with me I'd rather have a 300mm or 400mm lens on my camera.

Choccy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top