Canon 70-200mm all of them

Ath$rton

Ath$rton

Suspended / Banned
Messages
84
Name
Matthew
Edit My Images
Yes
I want to buy this lens but im finding it hard to find reviews on the internet or comparisons!

I like the look of the 70-200mm f4 and whether its worth the extra spend of is version

Also is there a big difference between the F4 and the F2.8 ? and is it worth the extra funds pls give me some advice

im not a pro photgrapher just a keen amateur but i do like wildlife and sports !
 
Ive got the 70-200 f4 non is and i absolutely love it. Link below to some pics, reason i want for it, cheaper than the others, i dont personally need is and because i dont do very much if any shooting indoors or say football when there playing under floodlights. Which ever one you choose your getting a cracking lens, so sharp.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=401056

The f2.8 offers an extra stop of light, if you need in the future abit more focal length you can use either a 1.4 teleconverter or 2x teleconverter whereas with the f4 on most bodies they wont auto focus with a 2x teleconverter on.
 
Last edited:
Hi Matthew

These must be just about the most discussed lenses on the planet on forums and review sites.

FWIW, I've had them all and bottom line is if you can afford the 70-200f2.8ISLII just get it !

If not, both f4s are absolutely superb and the f2.8 mkI is a bit soft wide open at the long end but sharpens up if you stop it down to f3.2 or f3.5.

Everyone knows how good these lenses are and you get exactly what you pay for in terms of performance and features. You cannot go wrong with any so just get the best you can afford.

Just my GBP0.02.

Good luck with your choices.

Gary
 
Ath$rton said:
hi ye thanks! why wont it auto focus i have the 60d croppped sensor ehy wont it focus on the 2x?
Click to expand...

Depends which 2x TC you use

This is my understanding of how things work:
Reporting TCs (Canon I & II, Kenko DG, Sigma): A TC-compatible lens (e.g. 400/5.6) detects the presence of a TC through the 3 extra contacts and reports the correct f-stop for the combination to the camera. If the f-stop is above f/5.6, AF is disabled for non-1-series bodies.

Non-reporting TCs, or taped TCs, or TCs with non-TC-compatible lenses: The lens does not detect the TC and just reports its own f-stop. AF may still work, because the camera doesn't know about the true f-stop, and tries to AF even if the combination is outside the specs.

Kenko DGX: Unlike the above TCs, the DGX manipulates the communication between the lens and the body so that the f-stop is always reported correctly for the combination, and so that AF is retained even if the combination is above f/5.6. From your and others observations that f/8 is reported but AF still works, my guess is that wide-open f-stop and used f-stop is reported separately and the camera looks at the wide-open f-stop to determine if it should try to AF.

The 70-200mm f4, 70-200mm f4 IS, 70-200mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 IS MKI and MKII are all great lenses, depends on your budget as to which one you get. 70-200mm f4 £400-500 ............ 70-200mm f2.8 IS MKII £1800
 
pete.rush said:
Depends which 2x TC you use

This is my understanding of how things work:
Reporting TCs (Canon I & II, Kenko DG, Sigma): A TC-compatible lens (e.g. 400/5.6) detects the presence of a TC through the 3 extra contacts and reports the correct f-stop for the combination to the camera. If the f-stop is above f/5.6, AF is disabled for non-1-series bodies.

Non-reporting TCs, or taped TCs, or TCs with non-TC-compatible lenses: The lens does not detect the TC and just reports its own f-stop. AF may still work, because the camera doesn't know about the true f-stop, and tries to AF even if the combination is outside the specs.

Kenko DGX: Unlike the above TCs, the DGX manipulates the communication between the lens and the body so that the f-stop is always reported correctly for the combination, and so that AF is retained even if the combination is above f/5.6. From your and others observations that f/8 is reported but AF still works, my guess is that wide-open f-stop and used f-stop is reported separately and the camera looks at the wide-open f-stop to determine if it should try to AF.

The 70-200mm f4, 70-200mm f4 IS, 70-200mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 IS MKI and MKII are all great lenses, depends on your budget as to which one you get. 70-200mm f4 £400-500 ............ 70-200mm f2.8 IS MKII £1800
Click to expand...

As for a lens for wildlife and motorsport, the 70-200mm in my opinion is too short, you would be better off looking at the canon 100-400mm or sigma 120-300mm, or primes like the canon 300mm f4
 
Bought the 70-200mm f4 of here a while ago, great lens but if you can afford it go for the 2.8, i am still waiting to i have some money for one but you will only want the next one up if you buy the f4.

IS is up to you depending on what you shoot and if you think you need it.
 
for what example of shoots would it be better to have the is ? or have the 2.8 ? because its £500 more for is on the none is versions!
 
I've owned a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 'L' (non IS) for under a year now and enjoy shooting with it, superb build quality and glass! I paid £800 for it in mint/boxed condition.

Here's a few of my hand-held examples (vivid colours);


2682_trim.jpg




3400_trim4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Without doubt, save up and wait for the 2.8, its got a £175 cashback offer on it right now.
 
It depends on what you want to use it for!

My experience from using both extensively (Motorsport and landscape use) is that colours etc are good on both, but AF is much better on the f2.8 version, because it allows more light to the AF sensor, it also gives a brighter viewfinder. On the flipside it is more expensive, heavier and bulkier, so when I went to central america earlier in the year I opted to take the f4 version (although there were quite a few occasions in the rain forest where that extra stop would have been welcome).

Dan Carr does a good comparison on his blog which would be worth a read (summary for him F4IS is better, but had been replaced by 70-300L).
 
I forgot to add that for wildlife/sports the 70-200 is on the short side, my advice would be not to buy a lens based on using it with a TC.
 
Another thing to consider is the weight of the F2.8 is considerably more than the F4 version. If you are walking round all day hand holding a lens I would much prefer to be hand holding the F4 IS than the F2.8.

Personally for wildlife I would be looking at the Sigma 50-500 OS or the Canon 100-400 IS options. But that's another discussion!
 
MisterRigsby said:
Do you need weather sealing on the lens? IIRC, only the IS versions are sealed.

When I used to be on the Canon side I had the 70-200F4IS and it was the sharpest lens I've ever owned.
Click to expand...

I don't see any difference between is or non-is - both were the very sharpest lenses in my bag. IS can only make a difference at low speeds handheld (static subject).

For anything moving in low light f/2.8 is better.
 
Ath$rton said:
ok , but if you were going to spend your money would u spend 500 on non is or 400 more for the is ?
Click to expand...

Neither if your intension is to use this lens for wildlife and motorsport as its too short.

You would be better off looking at the canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L, a prime lens or sigma equivalent like the 120-300mm f2.8 OS but it depends on your budget
 
I'd guess it depends on the type of motorsport and wildlife you plan to shoot too - for F1 or stalking deer in the Highlands 200mm may well be too short but possibly not if you are doing rallying or deer in the local park.

IS is a tremendous help when shutter speeds are falling and you cannot bump ISO. I use my 70-200/2.8IS for indoor portraits and it is ideal. IS won't stop a moving subject, as you know, it just helps with camera shake. The extra stop in moving from f4 to 2.8 would also help here of course.

The choice between f2.8 versus f4 hinges on how shallow you want your depth of field to be. f2.8 really throws backgrounds out of focus. This is extra useful if you are shooting over long distances where the subject and background are relatively close together. An f4 lens won't be as good at separating them as an f2.8 would be. Where the camera to subject distance is short compared to the subject to background distance the difference will be less obvious.

Then as mentioned the f2.8 lenses are heavier, especially if you add in IS.

Personally, I would go for the 2.8IS (mark II if possible). But as already mentioned they are all excellent lenses so I suspect your budget will be the determining factor. Try getting one second hand - as long as you don't pay too far over the odds you will move it on without much of a loss if you decide you want something different (or you could hire).
 
Nothing too far away! Like football ! BUT i need it to be versatile to do other shots like town and buildings! Close wildlife like garden or parks! Is the 2.8 non is better than f4 is? i wont be doing much low light stuff ! due i will be using a tripod most of the time!
 
If IS isn't much use to you then I'd say go for the 2.8. There won't be much in it, IQ-wise as both are very good quality lenses, but if you are looking to shoot action then the extra stop is very valuable.
 
DaveKing said:
Another thing to consider is the weight of the F2.8 is considerably more than the F4 version. If you are walking round all day hand holding a lens I would much prefer to be hand holding the F4 IS than the F2.8.

Personally for wildlife I would be looking at the Sigma 50-500 OS or the Canon 100-400 IS options. But that's another discussion!
Click to expand...

My wife is only 8 stone, she uses a 2.8 all day long, its only 1 kg. [ a bag of sugar!]
 
daugirdas said:
I don't see any difference between is or non-is - both were the very sharpest lenses in my bag. IS can only make a difference at low speeds handheld (static subject).

For anything moving in low light f/2.8 is better.
Click to expand...

yes, of course
 
Ath$rton said:
Nothing too far away! Like football ! BUT i need it to be versatile to do other shots like town and buildings! Close wildlife like garden or parks! Is the 2.8 non is better than f4 is? i wont be doing much low light stuff ! due i will be using a tripod most of the time!
Click to expand...

If you will be using a tripod then IS will need to be turned off and therefore will be redundant.
 
if my budget was limited ( which it usually is ) and it was a choice of f4 is or 2.8 non is it would be the 2.8 non is every time
you can rest a lens to steady it or use a mono pod / tripod but you can't get that extra stop of light from an f4 lens no matter how steady it is
 
In my experience for me the I.s. isn't worth the extra it costs,
On my 100/400 & my 600 I have it turned off all the time.
My A.F. seems to suffer a little with i.s. engaged.
Most if not all the people I know tend to turn it off too.
These are just my findings & having read through the thread I guess I'm alone on this one.
 
Last edited:
I got a 70-200 f4 L non IS for £355 off the classifieds and it was super sharp. It's responsible for some of the sharpest photos I've taken. But I decided I wanted the extra stop and IS so sold the f4 and put the money towards a f2.8 IS L MkI. I'm equally as happy with the 2.8 as I was with the f4, but the f4 was slightly sharper wide open. When the 2.8 is stopped down to f4 it's sharper than the f4 was wide open. They are all very good lenses, but with the ability to put a 2x TC on and still get AF the f2.8 would get my vote, and if you can afford £900-£1000 for the MkI IS then I would grab it straight away.
 
cosmicma said:
if my budget was limited ( which it usually is ) and it was a choice of f4 is or 2.8 non is it would be the 2.8 non is every time
you can rest a lens to steady it or use a mono pod / tripod but you can't get that extra stop of light from an f4 lens no matter how steady it is
Click to expand...

I'll second that - if I had enough cash, I'd have no hesitation in getting the 2.8 non IS over the f4 IS - IS only reduces movement at the camera end of things - imho, an extra stop is more useful in more situations than IS is.
 
For me? Yes, but I mainly use the lens for things that move, so the improved AF and extra stop helps.
 
Ath$rton said:
also where the the the 2.8 is 1 up for sale ? i can't find any new ones?
Click to expand...

You won't, it's been discontinued and replaced by the mk2 version for a couple of years now
 
Ath$rton said:
But without is wont there be camera shake if handheld? also how good is non is in the rain?
Click to expand...

As long as you keep the shutter speed faster than 1/320th you should be fine handheld (f2.8 helps with this). My non IS f2.8 has been fine in quite heavy rain, but if you are shooting with a weather sealed body (1D etc) the lens/body interface won't be sealed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top