Canon 70-200s

V

Vertigo1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,065
Edit My Images
No
Ok, Canon have a veritable plethora of 70-200 zooms but which is the best bet?

Forget the F2.8 IS, that's barking money so assume that's off the table.

The basic F4 can be had for about 350 quid. First question is whether it's worth an extra 200-250 quid for the F4 IS? This is actually a two-part question as I'm wondering how much the IS would help the lens in "standard" form and also how much it would help when used with a 1.4x extender, as the increase in length combined with an increase in f-stop would presumably make IS even more beneficial?

The second question is, given that the F2.8 and the F4 IS are very similarly priced, which would you go for? Would the wider aperture compensate for the lack of IS and vice-versa?

Basically, if you can't afford the F2.8 IS, would you consider the F2.8 or F4 IS over the basic F4 and if so, which one?
 
If i was short of getting the f2.8 the f4 IS would be a good choice

the IS will allow you to use a much slower shutter speed and still get a sharp image.
 
Given a straight choice between the F2.8 and F4 IS, I'm personally tending to favour the latter myself but interested in what others think. There's then the question of whether the IS is worth the premium over the basic F4.
 
Anything and everything basically, including motorsports, wildlife/nature & landscapes.

Basically I'm looking to get back into SLR photography after a very long break and am trying to spec up the kit I want/need. Will just be getting a basic 400D but want a decent mid-range walkabout zoom to complement the "standard" lens. Currently trying to decide whether to get something like the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70 instead of the kit lens and then a 70-200 F4 or whether to make do with the kit lens for the moment and get a 70-200 F4 IS alongside it, replacing the kit lens later when funds allow. The 70-200 F4 at £350 is a veritable steal but don't want to end up wishing I'd gone for the IS version instead, although these things hold their value so well I suppose I could always trade up later with a minimal hit.
 
If you arn't screaming for L glass then consider the new EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

Any of the 70-200 L's are well above "decent". They are all excellent. You can't do better (unless you go prime).
You can pick hairs as to which is better for sharpness. Whats certainly true is that the f2.8 is LOTS heavier, wheras the f4 is smaller and more manageable.

IS is a big advantage IMHO. It doesnt help stopping action, but it does help in low light. Shutter speeds of 1/10th are "do-able". Something you'll not get with the non IS without a tripod.
As a day to day thing the IS will decrease the number of missed shots, since it'll compensate for you not being a still as you think.

One thing you will imediately note is that the 70-200 in whatever guise out shines the kit lens. It's an expensive uphill trip for the rest of your glass, you'll be replacing ASAP.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Anything and everything basically, including motorsports, wildlife/nature & landscapes.

Basically I'm looking to get back into SLR photography after a very long break and am trying to spec up the kit I want/need. Will just be getting a basic 400D but want a decent mid-range walkabout zoom to complement the "standard" lens. Currently trying to decide whether to get something like the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70 instead of the kit lens and then a 70-200 F4 or whether to make do with the kit lens for the moment and get a 70-200 F4 IS alongside it, replacing the kit lens later when funds allow. The 70-200 F4 at £350 is a veritable steal but don't want to end up wishing I'd gone for the IS version instead, although these things hold their value so well I suppose I could always trade up later with a minimal hit.
Click to expand...

I've been looking at getting one of these lenes.

IMO go to the shop and try them out.

Over all the 70-200 is a very impressive lens:thumbs:

I should be ordering my one soon :D

Andy
 
with the 70 - 200 F4, whats would the f increase to with a 1.4TC and a 2TC

Thanks

Andy
 
Andy,

I had both of the non-IS versions until recently and then sold the f/4.

The 1.4x will lose you a stop and the 2x will lose 2 stops. Also bear in mind that you won't get AF with the f/4 and 2x. That said, the 2x is not really worth using on any 70-200 unless it's the only way to get the shot...the IQ suffers somewhat.

You may hear that the f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8 when they're both wide open....this is true but the 2.8 at f/4 is very much equal to the f/4 so it's not really a fair statement unless you justify it with the facts....it's a bit like saying that camera shake is more evident on the EF400 than the EF50.

I'd go for the fastest you can afford and don't put too much weight on IS if you're going to be mainly shooting moving subjects.

Bob
 
The forthcoming EF-S 55-250 IS has certainly clouded things somewhat as it'll give me a wider range plus IS for 100 quid less than the basic 70-200 F4! Problem is I don't know when this will become available and there are obviously no reviews of it yet.

I appreciate that any L glass lens is going to be way superior to the non-Ls and miles ahead of the kit lens but I generally tend to get the best kit I can afford whenever I'm buying and £350 for the F4 is just too damned tempting.

The appeal of using the 1.4x convertor with it at some point in the future is also a major factor as this would give it enough reach to be all the zoom I'd ever need really. Whilst IS would obviously have advantages on the standard lens, I'm thinking it would really come into its own when shooting at 320mm F5.6 with the convertor attached. If I got the F4 and then the convertor and found I was missing shedloads of shots at full reach due to camera shake I'd be annoyed :)
 
blinkerz said:
dont forget the 2.8 is going to do less hunting and brighter viewfinder..
Click to expand...

Which is always nice :)

I found the 300 F4L IS was hunting a bit with the 1.4 TC (F5.6) at times in dull light
 
blinkerz said:
dont forget the 2.8 is going to do less hunting and brighter viewfinder..
Click to expand...

Well obviously, in an ideal world, we'd all have the F2.8 IS (Wyvern I hate you) but are you saying you'd take the F2.8 non-IS over the similarly priced F4 IS?
 
Canon Bob said:
That said, the 2x is not really worth using on any 70-200 unless it's the only way to get the shot...the IQ suffers somewhat.
Click to expand...

Balls, quite frankly, Bob. The x2 TC II is a very worthy piece of kit. Yes, IQ will suffer slightly, but will still be above non-L level glass.
 
inaneredstripe said:
and if you havent got money falling out of your a*** , you could always try a sigma 55 -200 f4- 5.6.we have one one our 350d that produces excelent results.they can be had for less than £100 too.
Click to expand...

Totally different league, The sigmas a bit of pipe with glass at the end, and they dare call it a lens :lol:
 
Neither have I which is why I want to make the right choice to start with rather than have to end up chopping and changing later.

As the old saying goes - "measure twice, cut once".
 
Canon Bob said:
Andy,

I had both of the non-IS versions until recently and then sold the f/4.

The 1.4x will lose you a stop and the 2x will lose 2 stops. Also bear in mind that you won't get AF with the f/4 and 2x. That said, the 2x is not really worth using on any 70-200 unless it's the only way to get the shot...the IQ suffers somewhat.

You may hear that the f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8 when they're both wide open....this is true but the 2.8 at f/4 is very much equal to the f/4 so it's not really a fair statement unless you justify it with the facts....it's a bit like saying that camera shake is more evident on the EF400 than the EF50.

I'd go for the fastest you can afford and don't put too much weight on IS if you're going to be mainly shooting moving subjects.

Bob
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info bob :thumbs:

Andy
 
I haven't yet :)

Going to be an F4, just trying to justify another 250 quid (!!) for the IS version.
 
Vertigo1 said:
I haven't yet :)

Going to be an F4, just trying to justify another 250 quid (!!) for the IS version.
Click to expand...


what about the Sigma 2.8 70-200 i noticed thats around them same price as the 70-200L F4 IS

Andy
 
The other consideration is the weight. The IS lens is considerably heavier than the non-is.

I bought the 70-200 F4(the IS wasn't around then) because I wanted a light lens for sunday morning football (it's only 700g). It's done me brilliantly over the last two seasons

I think I paid £300 for a lightly used second hand one.
 
andyitr said:
what about the Sigma 2.8 70-200 i noticed thats around them same price as the 70-200L F4 IS
Click to expand...
Seems to be about £100 more than the Canon F4 and £150 less than the F4 IS.

The Sigma doesn't have IS and seems get very mixed reviews.
 
Byker28i said:
The other consideration is the weight. The IS lens is considerably heavier than the non-is.

I bought the 70-200 F4(the IS wasn't around then) because I wanted a light lens for sunday morning football (it's only 700g). It's done me brilliantly over the last two seasons

I think I paid £300 for a lightly used second hand one.
Click to expand...
The F4 is superb value at only £350 brand new now - it's almost a shame as the relative cheapness of it makes the leap to the IS version that much greater and thus harder to justify :)
 
You'll notice a slight yellow caste to Sigma glass compared to Canon - can become an irritation
 
Well I think I've made a decision. Nice as IS is, I can't justify £250 over the basic F4 just to add IS to it, especially when I can get a whole other lens for that.

Current plan is therefore:

400D body
Sigma 17-70mm DC HSM Macro
Canon 70-200mm F/4.0L

Sound like a plan?
 
My 2p's worth..
I am also new-ish to DSLR's, and bought a 24-105 and 70-300, both IS, to go with my 30D.
I have just sold both, and now have the 17-55 f2.8 and am in the process (thanks - you know who you are..) of getting a secondhand 70-200 f2.8 IS. I tried out the 70-200 f4, non IS I was amazed at how slow i could hand hold it, but as was said before - Measure twice, Cut once'. I have learnt at my cost. I must confess I am still concerned about the size and weight of the 2.8 IS, but it appears that you soon get used to it. The price hurts, but only at purchase time - I am speaking as a person who also does not have money coming from any orifices, and who also took a 60% paycut this year (I am only a jobbing builder, so never was an earner..)...
I found the 70-300 hunted when focusing, and never felt 'right'. The 24-105 wasn't quite wide enough, and also was too slow for me - hence my also going for the 70-200 2.8.

Good luck with whatever you do get, but take some time to think carefully - I have 'wasted' more than I can afford to loose, but maybe I am now a little wiser..?

Huh, doubt it though..
 
Vertigo1 said:
Well I think I've made a decision. Nice as IS is, I can't justify £250 over the basic F4 just to add IS to it, especially when I can get a whole other lens for that.

Current plan is therefore:

400D body
Sigma 17-70mm DC HSM Macro
Canon 70-200mm F/4.0L

Sound like a plan?
Click to expand...

Sounds spot on, the 70-200 f4 is a cracking lens, you wont be dissapointed.
 
Yeah I think the 70-200 F4 is generally regarded as the bargain of the universe :)
 
As far as the sub-£100 Sigma 55-200mm goes, I have heard of and seen very impressive results from it. For a cheap lightweight lens that can sit in the bottom of a bag incase needed it is very tempting.

But with the Canon's I went for the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS. Faster for stopping action in low light, shallower DoF (which can still be pretty deep for distant objects), more suited to using with a teleconvertor due to the loss of light, brighter viewfinder, and activates the high precision focussing on a 30D/400D.

I would like IS, but when I had some dodgy results one time from motion blur and asked whether it was worth the £350 difference someone, Chuckles I think, quite rightly said that a monopod is much cheaper.

I do not regret going for the f/2.8 version rather than f/4 IS.

Michael.
 
Michael,

What type of shots are you doing with the lens?

Are these action based shots?

Thanks

Andy
 
Reliably nailing handheld shots at 1/60th at 200mm is worth the extra money for IS - but do you see yourself shooting in such conditions ?

Personally I wish all lenses had IS, one day ...

Duncan
 
No-one disputes that IS is great but, in the case of the F4, it's another £250 quid! Whilst you may nail 1/60th shots at 200mm with it, do you do that enough to warrant the extra expense?
 
Inside churches, shooting from the back, yes I do. But that's a pretty specific application.

But even in more normal use, shooting a non-IS 200mm requires a very steady grip at 1/200, probably 1/250 or 1/320 would be safer so you're starting to limit it's use. Of course you could use one of those tripod thingys ...

You will never regret getting the IS version, IMHO it's worth the extra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top