Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0OL USM for a 350D?

Jimmy_Lemon

Jimmy_Lemon

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
12,095
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Have been looking around at lenses and want a nice kind of all round lens. I have the 18-55 kit lens which is nice, but was wanting something with a bit more scope. Have seen the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 OL USM listed in a few places for around the £450 mark and was just wondering what you lot think of it. I have seen other threads with people talking about it, but I have a couple of questions:

1. Will it work ok on the 350D (I am pretty sure it does, but want to check)
2. If there really that much difference to the f/2.8?
3. With this, a "nifty fifty", and my 18-55 do you think I would have a good range of lenses?

Any help would be much appreciated (and sorry for starting another thread about this lens) :p
 
1) Yep, works fine

2) The f/4 is a lot lighter so better to carry around all day. Unless you REALLY need the extra stop and IS think long and hard about paying another £6-700 for the f/2.8 version. I currently have the f/4 and love it but I am going to get the f/2.8 shortly as I do need the extra stop and IS for the stuff I'm shooting now.

3) You'll have a decent range covered but it really depends what you want to shoot. If it were wildlife then you'd need something longer - the 300mm with a 1.4x or the 400mm, or cheaper would be the Sigma 50-500. Landscape work would perhaps needs something better at the wide end than the kit lens.
 
Cheers px18 - now I know I could find this somewhere else, but the info would probably confuse me before it helped me. What is "IS" ?
 
Image Stabilisation.
 
Image stabilisation. It helps to stop camera shake. I think it compensates for two stops. You can set it to work on both axis or just the vertical (if you're panning race cars)
 
AHA cheers everyone :D knew I would get a nice simple explanation here ;)
 
Joe T said:
The only other lens to consider is the Sigma 70-200 2.8, which is heavier but the 2.8 is useful.
Click to expand...

Plus it's about £500 I think (which is more expensive than the Canon f4).

Also, you're at the mercy of Sigma's quality control.
matty ordered one from sigma, and the couriers lost it. So they sent him another, which arrived and was pin sharp.
Not long after, the first one eventually turned out and was as soft as butter, so that was a lucky escape :)
 
Apertureuk.com has the non-is 70-200 f2.8 lens for a bargin price (can't remember what at mo!)

Go for the 2.8, either version, well, well worth it. Especially for sport as you can get the 1.4 and 2 tele-converters to get further, with some quality loss, but nothing too serious!

Carl.
 
CarlOgden said:
Apertureuk.com has the non-is 70-200 f2.8 lens for a bargin price (can't remember what at mo!)

Go for the 2.8, either version, well, well worth it. Especially for sport as you can get the 1.4 and 2 tele-converters to get further, with some quality loss, but nothing too serious!

Carl.
Click to expand...

EF70-200mm f4L USM in stock - £470
EF70-200mm f2.8L USM in stock - £890
 
Ooooh I'm tempted with the 2.8 :thinking: might have to wait till after Xmas though :(
 
If in doubt I'd say go for the f2.8 or you'll always regret your decision.
Yeah its heavier, and questionably better optically (depends which reviews you read), but that extra stop is there when you need it (also means the lens sweet spot is a stop or 2 faster as well).

IS is a BIG advantage if you are doing hand held stuff.

I find that the IS stays on all the time and that I'm frequenty taking stuff at f4-f8 which is where the 70-200f2.8 really shines. Not that it's bad anywhere.
It is a big white L thing after all. I'm very happy with it.
 
Heya Jimmy L

To answer your original question:AGAIN:lol:
1)Yes remember you will have the "true" equivalent of a +- 110-320mm (70mmx1,6 - 200x1,6)
2)YES. That being said I have never touched the f/4 but own the 2,8 IS and i LOVE this lens.
Some will say it is heavy but I don't quite agree having done a few weddings with it:thumbs:
3) Your combination of lenses sounds reasonable but what do you shoot???

One thing to think about:the 70-200 although not heavy could put strain on the 350's mount.
If you put it on the 350 be sure to support the weight by the lens and NOT the camera
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top