Canon 70-200 f4 non IS, waste of money?

SamJT

SamJT

Suspended / Banned
Messages
241
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I've decided to start sports photography a little more seriously and have decided a 70-200 lens would be most appropriate for the types of shot I'm looking to get. I would mainly be shooting downhill mountain biking which is often in quite dense woodland and my issue is whether or not the 70-200 f4 would be on the edge of being fast enough to cope with relatively low light. I know this topic has been covered before for indoor/outdoor use but my question is more about whether buying the f4, because it is the only decent lens in my budget, would be a waste of money because I would instantly find myself wanting to upgrade to the f2.8 or if people reckon it would be a good investment as probably 80% of the time there would be enough light?
I'm shooting on a canon 550d and will be looking to upgrade to a 7d in the next year or so.

Cheers,
Sam
 
Why not consider a sigma 70-200 f2.8 instead, much cheaper and is a great lens (very happy with mine). The extra light could make a big difference for fast sports.
 
You will want the f2.8 at some point, pretty much guaranteed. You can often find 2nd hand canons for under £600 if you can stretch/wait a bit longer.

Other than that, go for a used f2.8 sigma, or if you don't fancy that look for a cheap 2nd hand canon f4 and sell it for very little loss when you've saved up a bit more - maybe by putting the money from the camera upgrade towards the lens instead.

On that point, I'm not sure that for downhill mountain biking you'll really benefit from the better af the 7d provides over a faster lens. However, for other sports (i.e. field sports), the 7d would probably be superior.
 
I've got an F4... used the 2.8 as well, but found it so heavy... which ended up being a contributory factor in going for the f4. No complaints so far. Sure, being able to open it up to 2.8 would be ideal, but so far have been able to live without it. But then I've not used it for sports photography so I can't comment on it's use for that.
 
If you're looking for a cheap lens as an interim to later buying a 2.8 then you could also consider a nifty 55-250mm initially.
 
I was gonna ask the same question. How much would the lack of IS impede motorsports photography? I like going to car shows etc and the greater reach would be generally beneficial.
 
The shutter will need to be fast anyway to catch the action so I can't see much need for IS in that case.
 
Thanks for the comments everyone

pooley said:
You will want the f2.8 at some point, pretty much guaranteed. You can often find 2nd hand canons for under £600 if you can stretch/wait a bit longer.

Other than that, go for a used f2.8 sigma, or if you don't fancy that look for a cheap 2nd hand canon f4 and sell it for very little loss when you've saved up a bit more - maybe by putting the money from the camera upgrade towards the lens instead.

On that point, I'm not sure that for downhill mountain biking you'll really benefit from the better af the 7d provides over a faster lens. However, for other sports (i.e. field sports), the 7d would probably be superior.
Click to expand...

2nd hand canon f4 is probably what I'd be after by the sounds of it. You mentioned not being able to benefit from the 7d's focusing, that's one thing I've never really understood, but I think the 7d's 8fps probably would sway it for me still. How does the image quality of a 550d vs the 7d compare when they're both using the same lens?
 
IQ wise - same sensor, virtually identical results.

Regarding the focussing, if you're going for side on shots, with downhill biking you should have a large subject to lock on to, and for head on shots, I'd personally be pre-focussing. Others may differ. Regarding the 7d's 8 fps, photographers managed to shoot high quality sport for years without machine gunning their subject - it's just a matter of refining your timing technique

All things considered, the 7d is the superior body, but with this subject I wouldn't expect a massive gain - that's far more likely to come from using the best glass you can get your hands on
 
I have to say I rarely miss a particularly good shot because of not having a high enough fps on the 550d, but it might be handy for panning shots when it sort of comes down to luck as much as timing. Thanks for clarifying though, it seems a quality lens is definitely what I should be after.
 
You will find the metering system on the 7d vastly superior to that of the 550d whic will be useful for your action photography. It is a bigger camera and the range of control buttons and dials is more comprehensive. Once you get the hang of these you will be able to make adjustments on the hoof more easily than you could with the 550d. IMHO you will not notice much, if any diference in IQ between the two with like for like images/lenses. Given your choice of action photography though, once you have got the hang of the enhanced features, you may get more keepers. :)
 
I've got the F4 L and sometimes I don't find it fast enough. I bought mine about 5 years ago from someone local on eBay that had just upgraded to a F2.8. It cost me £295 all that time ago.
 
If I were you I would go for a sigma 70-200mm f2.8 it will be well within your budget and will let you get shots that the f4 simply won't. It is a very capable lens and you can always sell it on should you save enough for the latest canon one in the future. Ignore the fact it's not a canon lens and it's not white and you will be surprised!
 
the f4L is a great lens.
When you upgrade bodies i'd maybe consider a 1D II or IIN over a 7D.
Yes they're much older and won't have half the features of the newer 7D, but IQ wise they're much better, and you can pick one up for around £300.
 
I really don't understand why a camera like the 1d ii n can have a better image quality than a camera like the 7d with three times the MP count. But that probably is a good shout and I had thought about it, much better value as well!
 
Even though it is an older camera it does have a physicaly larger sensor (which is good) and less MP so probably reduced noise at higher iSO. I don't own one.

The Canon 70-200 F4 L is a good lens if you have enough light to work with (I own one).

IS is not normally needed in normal motor sport action. However it comes in real handy when shooting when shooting non action at mortor sport events. If the IS has panning mode it will help slightly when panning. I shoot motor sport with an image stabilised lems.
 
You should also have a look at the newer 70D, it's got better noise handling than the 7D so you can up the ISO with the 70-200 f4 to get a faster shutter speed for sports but still have a fantastic IQ. The AF system is similar, but easier to use than the 7D and the 70D is more forgiving of less than perfect set up than the 7D. I had two 7D's, thinking maybe the first was below par but the second was the same anyway, and in the end I couldn't wait to change to the 70D. The 70D is the best crop camera I've had and that's including a 1D MkIII (1.3 crop) and I use it as a companion to my 5D3 rather than as a backup, I'm using the 70D about 40% of the time whereas I was using the 7D's and 1D3 about 10% of the time. The price of the 70D has dropped a lot since its release and it was a brilliant camera at its release price so it's an absolute bargain these days.
 
Why don't you hire a few lenses and make a decision that way? You might be able to afford a 2.8, but will it be too bulky/too fiddly?
 
I have a 550d and a 7d and use the them with a combination of 70-200F4 and 17-50 F2.8. As it's been said IQ wise there is hardly any difference between the 2 bodies but the 7d is just a much nicer camera to use and much more intuitive to change settings quickly.

I also shoot a lot of DH biking and the extra fps of the 7d isn't of much interest as i never blast of lots of frames really but can come in handy when panning.

I would love the 2.8 70-200 for less light situations but as i use off camera flash a lot it's not THAT important to me!

Few 7d/70-200 F4 shots.

1.


2.

IMG_8300 - Version 2 by nessiemac1, on Flickr

3.

IMG_7039 by nessiemac1, on Flickr

4.

IMG_5914 by nessiemac1, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I was generally happy with the results from my 70-200 f4 however I don't think mine was the sharpest example, some people claim the IS version is a lot sharper while others say they can't see a difference, make of that what you will... With regards to f/2.8 telephotos I'd suggest trying one out as others have suggested and see if you think the weight would be an issue for you. For some people a 1.5kg+ lens isn't an issue at all but for others it's a bit much to carry around all day, particularly if shooting hand held most of the time.
 
For what it's worth, I have a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and a good friend has the f2.8L IS version. I can walk around all day with my f4L comfortably - 6 hrs being my longest session so far.

The f4L weighs 760 g whereas the f2.8L (both IS) weighs 1,490 g. That's almost twice the weight. But my friend does snowboarding and regularly goes to the gym!

It depends what you think will best suit YOU. Both are great Canon glass. I occasionally pop a Canon 1.4x III Extender on mine which extends its reach to 98-280mm.
 
In answer to your question "is the Canon 70-200F4 non IS a waste of money" - No, not at all, it's a belter of a lens, very sharp and a nice weight, especially on your 550D...

I had the F4 non IS and used it for motorsport etc and loved it, the only reason I sold it was I was in a position to be able to upgrade it. Yes you may well want 2.8 in the future, but you can either save up and wait tip you can afford one, or buy the F4 now, enjoy it, use it and when you've saved up and if you wish you could then sell on (for not much of a loss) and upgrade...
 
I still use my 70-200mm F4L when I can but it's not as often as I'd like! It's too short for most telephoto stuff I want but it was great for a recent visit to the zoo.

I've never really had much of a problem with it being F4 rather than F2.8 and I've not had any issues not having IS.
 
I had the F4 non IS on 550D a while back and its a great combo. Very good sharpness and IQ. I needed a reduced depth of field and as I went through the gears I switched to primes and a 5dmkiii but the 70-200 f4L is a lens I have considered repurchasing for studio work. Well built and sharp!
 
I don't think its a waste of money, I think its a great upgrade for a budget. I brought mine second hand on here, for £370, done some lovely photos, light can be bit of issue sometimes, but it's great for sports which I love.

10616530765_1bc6222b0e_b.jpg


I also shoot this moon with it the other day.

11859001745_09750c092c_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top