So which canon 70-200L usm should I get

Rebel t3i

Rebel t3i

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,908
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
As title which one
fancy the f2.8 should I get the non IS or IS, Mk1 or Mk2 don't fancy the price tag of the Mk2
Is there that much difference between them to justify the price difference
Would the much cheaper f4 non IS be adequate

Thanks Tony
 
What do you want to use it for? Do you need the IS? Do you intend to shoot in low light with it or will it be used outdoors at sports events? You'll get much more useful replies if people know the full story.
 
Non is is sharper than the is.

2.8 if you ever intend to shoot in low light. There's a couple of 2.8 non is in for sale at the mo going for cracking prices.
 
seen the ones in the FS section just trying to work out which model I need
Is the IS version as fast as the non IS if you switch the IS off
 
cheers for the link read it a few times and still none the wiser
The review implies the IS is better but reading threads on here people say the non IS is better:shrug:
 
I've had them all at some point. I have the f/2.8 II now and it's the best of the bunch. The problem with asking questions like this on forums is everyone is going to suggest the lens that they own.
Bang for buck the f/4 IS is probably the best. You're not just paying the extra for the IS, the glass inside the lens is different.
I don't agree that the non IS is sharper than the IS versions.
 
Not as good as the MKII and to be honest if I was on a budget I'd plump for the f/4 IS as I think you'd be struggling to tell the difference unless you ned f/2.8.

The f/2.8 focuses faster!
 
not on any particular budget
fast focus speed is a must
I have a host of lenses I'd prefer a fast focusing low light
It is the 2.8 I have bookmarked at a few places just trying to work out IS or non IS MK1 or Mk2
seems people selling non IS models list them as better IQ but the reviews I have read say not
 
If you have the money get the MkII............no contest!
 
much better!
 
admirable said:
Not as good as the MKII and to be honest if I was on a budget I'd plump for the f/4 IS as I think you'd be struggling to tell the difference unless you ned f/2.8.

The f/2.8 focuses faster!
Click to expand...

Did you find the 2.8 non IS to be better in low light than the f4 IS? It's something I never got a chance to check on before getting my f4 IS
 
To be honest I didn't have it long and it was a while ago, 2007?

It was better at focusing moving subjects in the low light but not sure if the image quality was better in low light and it seemed a lot heavier at the time but I'm used to the weight of the f/2.8 now.

I then bought the f/2.8IS from Kerso for just under £900......seemed a fortune at the time. :lol:
 
Ok, thanks. I have used the 2.8 IS mk1 and it is much heavier, still love my f4 but if I had the cash it would be swapped for the 2.8 mk2 in B heartbeat.
 
been reading some more and it appears the f4l is renowned for its IQ better that the others apart from the mk2 2.8 IS .
I couldn't find any reviews specifically comparing the f4 with the mk2 2.8
 
Last edited:
It is but if it's IQ you are after the f/2.8 MkII is the one to go for.

You must remember that lens technology has advanced at an alarming rate in the last few years and because of this the photographers expectations and appetite for increased quality are much higher than before.

Canon, and others, have produced superb lenses like the 70-200f/2.8 II and the 135mm f/2 that take your breath away with the clarity of images they can attain.

I suggest you hire the f/2.8 MkII if it's in your budget. :)


Rebel t3i said:
been reading some more and it appears the f4l is renowned for its IQ
Click to expand...
 
So many lenses on my wish list oooohhhh
You can't have enough lenses lol
On the case with the mk2 2.8 just checking out the best deal
and then I have t convince myself I need a lens of this quality it is way above my abilities
 
I had a 70-200 f4 L non IS which was very sharp, nice and light and had fast AF. However, it left me with a taste of wanting more so with a limited budget I went for the f2.8 IS L MkI and it's a better lens overall than the f4. It's not quite as sharp wide open (f2.8) as the f4 was wide open but by the time it's stopped down to f3.5 it's sharper than the f4 and remains sharper all through the range.
I would like to try the MkII to see just how much better it is than the MkI, but I'm afraid it'll only mean more saving up and a part exchange to the MkII, and I can't really afford it at the minute after getting a 50 1.4 and an 85 1.8 recently.
 
If you have the cash then buy what you can afford to buy. If you buy the f/4 non IS you will want the f/4IS, If you buy f/4 IS you will always want the f/2.8 if you get the mk1 f/2.8IS you will always want the mk2 and so on.

I have the mk1 f/2.8 IS and its a great lens but I have a real desire to buy the mk2. I bought that one becasue I planned to keep it and never wanted the urge to feel i needed to upgrade it was the best canon offered covering the 70-200mm range at the time and after all a good lens will always be a good lens even after all the paint has worn off.

My current list of wants is
New body 1DX ouch which will then mean I need an ultra wide angle as the 10-22 is EF-s and wont fit any of the bodys. so a 16-35
100mm 2.8 macro L
and the mk2 2.8 70-200
400mm f/2.8 IS dreams

I don't think anyone is ever happy with what they have, there is always somthing newer or better round the corner.
 
I'm happy enough with the f4 that replacing it can wait until I have the 135 L or 85 L - not sure which. Both of those will have to wait until I've taken my family on holiday to the Caribbean - according to OC Home Command that cannot wait ;-)
 
Not that I'm biased at all, however my 70-200 IS mk2 just turned up from Kerso this morning.....

Haven't taken many pictures yet, however it certainly is sharp, and when playing with the IS I was getting consistently good results at 1/20 sec, handheld at 200mm - early impressions are that it seems much better than the IS in any of my other lenses (although I could just be trying to justify to myself the amount I just spent!).
 
gone for the ef 70-200 f2.8 IS MK1
couldn't justify the cost of the sexy mk2 for my skills no matter how much I tried
was up all night telling myself I should get the MK2 but common sense prevailed today lol
and I bought a realistically priced used mk1 for well under 1k
should be with me in the next few days but the week end may get in the way
 
It's still a great lens, you won't regret your choice
 
Got my f2.8 Mk II from Kerso last week and absolutely love it. It's a heavy beast mind you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top