The Canon 70-200 range.

Gerods

Gerods

Suspended / Banned
Messages
681
Name
George.
Edit My Images
Yes
This range covers quite a few lenses. f2.8 f4.0, is non is etc
In your experience which is the best combination. Not ready to buy just yet, just putting out some feelers. Any help will be very much appreciated.
 
have a thorough search on this forum.... this question pops up often...and has been answered many times before.

Dave :)
 
As Dave says. I have both the f4IS, which I am keeping as it is light enough for me, and the f2.8IS which is too heavy, so it os being sold. Do a search, and look at buying secondhand if you can't deceide, as a few days living with one or both will soon tell you which is right, and you can sell on without much if any loss.
 
steveinspain said:
As Dave says. I have both the f4IS, which I am keeping as it is light enough for me, and the f2.8IS which is too heavy, so it os being sold. Do a search, and look at buying secondhand if you can't deceide, as a few days living with one or both will soon tell you which is right, and you can sell on without much if any loss.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. Now as you have both of the lenses I am looking at, disregarding the weight problem, is there any difference quality wise. I have read that the f4 is a tad sharper than the f2.8. do you have any preference in this area.
 
I am sure some will say there is, but for me, the content of the photo is more important than absolute sharpness etc. Yes, I want my pictures to look as good as possible, and need all the help I can get, but both are amongst the best, and I would guess that any differences could be actual sample differences. I have not used my f2.8 much, as it is too heavy. Unless you shoot both lenses side by side you would have a really hard job telling which was which. I cannot tell the difference in quality in any of my lenses (all are Canon, but only 1 is L, though I had another L and sold it for a non L, as it suited my needs better.
As Canon Bob, who knows a thing or two (not much more than 2 though..) recently pointed out, we often get caught up in quality of the gear, and maybe for some at the expense of the quality of the photo itself..
I love the f4 as it is small and light enough not to break my back, or to scare my subjects, and will not attract a scumball thief so much as the bigger f2.8.
However, these are my feelings, and you and your needs may be different
 
I'm deciding which would be good for me out of the 2.8 and 4 myself actually.

Still undecided, might go for the f/4 IS but that 2.8 is very tempting, i'm just not sure if i'm gonna need the bigger apature.

I think if your gonna use it in low light situations, the 2.8 and the 4 for everything else.
 
I go with Steve (metaphorically speaking, of course..!!)
I wonder when they will update the 2.8 to an IS, which I find invaluable. The f4 is a newer lens (ie newer design)

George
 
George - the 2.8 comes in both IS and non IS - Mine is the IS, and as you say, it is invaluable !
 
Steve, sorry I was having a great attack of brain fade combined with age! I was thinking of the 24/70 and 24/105.
Just don't pay any attention to my posts on a Saturday after Burns night...:bonk::bonk: that's how I feel....:wave::wave:
 
A little input from me....

I ran the f/4 and f/2.8 side by side for a while...the f/4 for flight portability and the f/2.8 for it's better low light performance. They were pretty much indistinguishable as far as IQ is concerned. I let the f/4 go when the stupid cabin baggage rules changed last summer....the only real reason.

I swapped the f/2.8 for a f/2.8 IS a few days ago and again, can't see a difference.

The only choice for "Joe Average" to make is lower light or not and IS or not.

Bob
 
There's little difference in terms of image qualilty, but I find IS invaluable, particularly in telephotos. I've had far too many good shots ruined by camera shake not to avail of IS. If budget or weight are an issue go for the f4 IS, but if you have ambitions of pro/semi pro get the 2.8 IS. I have a f4 non IS that hasn't been used since I tried the 2.8 IS. Incidentally I was concerned with the weight of the 2.8, but in practice it hasn't been an issue.
 
Thanks to everyone's input on this, Low light capability isn't really needed that much. So I guess it will be the f4 is L.
 
Gerods said:
Thanks to everyone's input on this, Low light capability isn't really needed that much. So I guess it will be the f4 is L.
Click to expand...

but...

if you ever feel the urge to use a TC then having f2.8 is a good starting point :)
 
:agree: That is a good point.. loosing F stops so AND loosing AF is something to think about...

Personaly, once i win the lottery im gonna get the 2.8IS, i hired one for a weekend and didnt want to take it back!! lol..
 
Gerods said:
Thanks to everyone's input on this, Low light capability isn't really needed that much. So I guess it will be the f4 is L.
Click to expand...

You haven't said what you'll be shooting but there's a little more to it than low light. The shallower DOF at 2.8 will improve subject isolation if that would be a feature in your images.

Bob
 
I was going to say that... but forgot!!!... :lol: Id had a long day...
 
I have three varieties of the 70-200: the f/4 IS, the f/2.8 non-IS and the f/2.8 IS.

The f/4 is much smaller and lighter than the other two. But I can't tell the difference in terms of image quality. They're all brilliant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top