I want more zoom!

ssimmonsphoto

I have been extremely happy with the Tammy lens that I bought based on "your" recommendation. It has been my one "go to" lens that I rarely take off my camera. But there are occasions when I have wanted more zoom. Sometimes it's a ceremony where I'm not allowed up close or when it can just generally be hard to get close to the B&G without being a PIA. So, I've been looking to upgrade the Promaster slow thing that I've been borrowing on the weekends from my day job. I know that I want a 2.8 and IS would be useful at that length. So I've been looking at the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS AF. Given that it's a good chunk of change, I wanted to come back to see if I'm nuts or not. It's not something that I'd be ordering right away, but it's on my list as something to pick up sometime during this season. It has great reviews on B&H.

If not this one, what is your recommendation? :ear

EDIT: Ok, now I'm adding this one to the mix even though there is no IS simply because it's half the price: Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX APO Macro HSM

jeffreaux2

I have the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS that you mentioned. Yes it's on the pricey side, but if you can swing it....it's the lens to get for wedding work.

Some folks (even fellow dgrinners) use non- stabilized 70-200 F2.8 glass from canon or third party makers with success....however....the struggle in sometimes dismal lighting with trying to get a shutter speed high enough to dismis camera shake as a factor in image quality will leave you wanting more......more light.....more shutter speed....more ISO.....or simply image stabilization. Forget tripods.....for long lenses....image stabilization is where its AT. For wider focal legths...such as a 17-50mm range....stabilization is a great aide....but at 200mm when you are already in noisy territory with the ISO, already ultra thin DOF at F2.8, and you can only squeeze out 1/30 of a second shutter speed.....youll be happy to have spent the dough on a stabilized telephoto.

1/30th isnt too much to ask of that lens at 200mm if you are careful.

Blurmore

I'm not nearly as buff as Jeff so I use the 70-200 f4 L IS. Sharpest Canon Zoom ever benched, fast focusing, 4 stop IS (70-200 f2.8 IS is only a 3 stop) no sherpa required.

mmmatt

I recently switched from the 70-200 f4L non-IS to the f2.8L IS and I will say that I think Blurmore is right about the f4... I think that lens is sharper than the 2.8, but both are better than any of the non-canon alternatives that I have tried. I upgraded to the 2.8 mostly because of low light focusing. I certainly use the lens wide open plenty but not always. You have to be careful with that DOF! The larger the available aperture the better it will focus in low light... regardless of where you have the camera set for the shot, it is focusing at full open aperture. I found my f4L was hunting on me quite a lot in low light and the f2.8L is far better. The non-canon alternatives will also not control the zoom function on your canon flash FWIW.

As for the IS, I was a hard sell there and still I'm not sure it is completely necessary for me. I was shooting my f4 lens pretty consistantly at 1/80th @200mm (on a full frame) and pleased with the results. Sure the IS will buy you a few more stops, but it doesn't do you any good if you have subject movement, and 1/80th is about when that starts to get ya. On a crop body the rules are a little different because in terms of handholding the lens, it is a longer lens than on a FF body. If you are shooting flash, you can shoot all day at 1/15 with any 200mm lens NBD, but with a heavy mix of ambient or without flash you have to hold her steady. I would say get the 2.8 non-IS before the f4 IS, and I personally took the f4 non-IS over the tammy/sigma f2.8 options and have no regrets, but I also had a 135 f2L in my bag so low light performance wasn't super critical for me. If I had no longish, fast lenses I would get the best f2.8 tele zoom I could afford, and if you don't have a real steady hand-hold get the IS. Regardless of all of that, Get a f2.8 tele zoom in your bag as soon as you can, it is a must have!


My .02

Matt

dangin

sounds like the IS/non-IS is the decision to make here... if you want to shave a couple bucks off and still get a sharp lens @ 2.8, i strongly suggest the new(ish) tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. reliable, relatively quick focusing, and pretty damned good at f/2.8. i've got the nikon-mount version and have it to supplement my nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8. it is that good.

ssimmonsphoto

Thanks for all the tips, guys. The 2.8 IS would definitely max out my fun money for the summer since I just upgraded my PC, but I'll definitely think about it. The non-Canons are tempting for the price tag, but I definitely can understand wanted IS for that long a lens. Hmmmm.... I wish money grew on trees! Specifically the ones in my back yard.

Anyone else have any long lens pointers to throw at me?

Art Scott

ssimmonsphoto wrote:

I have been extremely happy with the Tammy lens that I bought based on "your" recommendation. It has been my one "go to" lens that I rarely take off my camera. But there are occasions when I have wanted more zoom. Sometimes it's a ceremony where I'm not allowed up close or when it can just generally be hard to get close to the B&G without being a PIA. So, I've been looking to upgrade the Promaster slow thing that I've been borrowing on the weekends from my day job. I know that I want a 2.8 and IS would be useful at that length. So I've been looking at the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS AF. Given that it's a good chunk of change, I wanted to come back to see if I'm nuts or not. It's not something that I'd be ordering right away, but it's on my list as something to pick up sometime during this season. It has great reviews on B&H.

If not this one, what is your recommendation?

EDIT: Ok, now I'm adding this one to the mix even though there is no IS simply because it's half the price: Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX APO Macro HSM

Check out my siggy for my Praise of Sigma:D
I have been using the 70-210 APO for over 25+years (pre-digital versions) and they have never let me down....always tack sharp and the new ones (EX HSM) are much quieter and faster focusing than my older one.......Sigma has spoiled me with great glass at less expensive prices than any camera mfg'ers glass.....and out of all 3rd party glass makers they are by far the largest................

I do not feel as if you could go wrong with the Siggy 70-200 Macro EX HSM...it will do you proud................

As far as IS goes....mine is built into my body (KM 7D)....but when I feel I really need it.....I pull out one of my 'pods.........unless restricted by firecode or venue rules there is no place a pod cannot be used....it may be a PIA to do so....but what is the photo really worth to you......if your making a living with a camera ..... every shot needs to be off a pod or a support of some sort.....but we get in a hurry and settle for less than perfect in our own creations................

cj99si

I ended up getting the 70-200 2.8 IS, It has saved me quite a few times. Ive gotten sharp images at a 1/4 second and below. Its on a camera pretty much the whole wedding day.


I will say I have heard a lot of good things about sigmas 70-200 2.8, but their not white and dont have IS:D

momwac

I'm not buff, but wouldn't trade my 70-200/2.8IS for anything, ever. It's my go-to lens for just about all the events I shoot. No weddings here, but plenty of poorly lit events (awards, concerts, graduations) from the back of a cavernous church auditorium. When "my" seniors start getting married and asking about wedding pix, my 70-200/2.8IS may get another workout... if I'm up to the task by then.

Swartzy

I also use the 70-200 f/4.0....non IS. It would be nice to have the IS. Most of the time the 24-105 IS is mounted but for a bit more reach, the 70-200 is the ticket. The IS has more advantages than most talk about. It isn't just about slower shutter speeds (i.e. 1/4 sec and such). I generally like the shutter speed no lower than 1/100th...most times f/4.0 is sufficient but one must be very steady, especially at 200 mm. Importing the files, there always are some that aren't sharp which drives me crazy. Having shot with the 2.8 version IS numerous times I will say, if the budget can handle it..go for it...but you won't go wrong or kick yourself with the f/4.0...if you can swing the IS go with that. It will save you about $900.00 or so.

studio1972

Your cameras are not full frame, so you probably don't need 200mm of zoom. I find the 100mm 2.0 long enough for the situations you describe, and it's an excellent portrait lens as well, and much cheaper. It is also much smaller which is handy. Sometimes if you are at the back of a dark church, 2.8 isn't quite fast enough, so having the wider aperture really helps as well.

ssimmonsphoto

Update:
I bit the bullet! I order the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS last night from NewEgg. Saved a bunch over B&H and I've always been happy with NewEgg's service to me. I'm hoping it will arrive on Wednesday. So excited!

Thanks for all of your advice!

Dooginfif20

You will be happy! I used a friend of mines Nikon (I know its not Canon) 70-200 2.8 VR (vibration reduction) and it gave awesome results! I rented a Tamron 70-200 2.8 non IS for a wedding I was shooting as second for to see if the $1000 extra for the Nikon was worth it and it for sure is! The AF was way too slow and the VR is a life saver!