Which of the Canon 70-200 L's???

photon

I'm in the market for a good (Canon) 70-200 zoom, and I'm having a hard time deciding between the Canon f/4.0 L, 2.8 L, or 2.8 IS L.

Considerations:

• Aperture, the most obvious difference. At the moment, I will be using the lens outdoors on fast-moving kids or landscapes, astrophotography, or maybe branching into birding or wildlife if I also get the 1.4 extender (though wildlife isn't a high priority at the moment). Is the extra stop worth the extra cost? Later I could see myself doing more sports as my kids get older, maybe even hockey), but I don't see myself doing concerts any time soon.
• IS: I have the 24-105 f/4 IS, and I love the fact that i) I don't need flash in a lot of situations, and ii) I don't need a tripod, or both. With the f/4.0, or f/2.8 non-IS, how often am I going to have to tote the tripod around to get rid of camera shake?
• Weight: at 23 oz, the f/4 is probably pretty reasonable to take on a hike etc. without a tripod. At 3.24 lbs, the f/2.8 IS is a beast. How long can people carry this thing without resorting to post-shoot physiotherapy? And if you can't carry it around so you bring your tripod to rest it on, why get the IS?
• Cost: this is not as much a deciding factor for me (I married the right girl!) However, if the physical considerations of a 2.8 IS is going to make me not want to take it out, then it might as well stay on the store shelf instead of mine.
• Quality: I've heard that the quality of all 3 are near equivalent, so this doesn't seem to be an issue.
• My skill level: constantly improving, I'd like to think, but I only have a couple years of concentrated experience. The way things are going though, this is going to be a long term investment.

I guess I'd like to justify getting the 2.8 IS, but I'm concerned that the lens won't be practical. However, if I go for the f/4, am I just going to be wanting the f/2.8 in 6 months? Any practical tips for lugging the thing around, other than joining a gym?

Sorry for the long post, and thanks in advance for your thoughts and advice.

illuminati919

This is my non-expert opinion. I think the lens that you should look into is the f/2.8 with non IS. You would be spending close to 600 dollars more for the IS, and as far as the f/4.0 goes, you will probably want something with a lower aperture especially if you're shooting hockey, the lights in a hockey arena usually suck. And I have also heard rumors that the IS version locks up, don't know if Canon has fixed the problem, try to look into it. A buddy of mine shoots with the f/4.o and he gets magnificent photos, so I'm guessing the f/2.8 will allow you to do the same and even better. Good luck !

Nikolai

f/2.8 IS
I wanted this lens since the moment I got my first Canon 10 months ago.
I didn't have the funds at the time, so I waited. Patiently. I knew the moment should come...
Finally, I got the funds. And a local photog got one LNIB item for sale.
Now I'm a proud owner of one of the best lens in the lineup :
Yes, it's heavy (very). Yes, it's expensive (quite so).
Yet it's 2.8 and it's IS.
I have no regrets.
Listen to your inner self and do as it says..
For me, the inner peace with myself was far more important than a few hundred bucks.
Money, I earn and spend. Glass, I use and keep.
HTH

wxwax

If you're shooting people, I imagine you'll want the 2.8.

The IS you can live without. But if money's no object, get it.

It's heavy, but geez, it's not that heavy.

philipw

At the moment, I will be using the lens outdoors on fast-moving kids or landscapes, astrophotography, or maybe branching into birding or wildlife if I also get the 1.4 extender (though wildlife isn't a high priority at the moment). Is the extra stop worth the extra cost? Later I could see myself doing more sports as my kids get older, maybe even hockey), but I don't see myself doing concerts any time soon.

This of course is just my opinion, and I know they vary on IS, but if you're going to be shooting fast moving kids, or anything fast moving, you're not going to need an IS unless you're looking to get some motion blur in your images. I have the lens, wihtout IS, and I have not been disappointed with it. It is my workhorse lens. Every now and then I wish I had IS for some low light stuff, but not enough to make me want to kick myself for not getting it.

I'm really not qualified to speak about astrophotography since I have no experience with it, but I would think you might want to use it on a tripod for that, in which case you wouldn't need IS. Perhaps I'm wrong here.

Weight: at 23 oz, the f/4 is probably pretty reasonable to take on a hike etc. without a tripod. At 3.24 lbs, the f/2.8 IS is a beast. How long can people carry this thing without resorting to post-shoot physiotherapy? And if you can't carry it around so you bring your tripod to rest it on, why get the IS?

I hike with mine a lot, and it doesn't seem to bother me, but I may have just gotten used to it since I've used it for so long. I do seem to remember thinking it was heavy in the beginning, but not anymore. And when I know I won't be shooting with it, it goes in my backpack.

...if I go for the f/4, am I just going to be wanting the f/2.8 in 6 months?

Yes. Simply put, it is a really good lens for low light shooting. The f/2.8 was a big selling point for me with this lens for the kind of photogrpahy I do in my day job. I have not met one person who uses the f/2.8 lens that has been disappointed with it.

Hope this helps.

Philip

Jeffro

If you are already living the f2.8 IS dream...it will do nothing but haunt:yikes you if you don't get it.

I have it. I love it. I carry it, in hand, for up to 8-hours when I shoot motocross. I don't use a neck strap at the track...gets in the way. I do carry a shoulder bag that I can slip the rig into between motos. Granted I don't need the IS when shooting most motocross shots. Heck I don't even need the f2.8 when shooting most motocross. I do use the IS when doing slow shutter pans. I also use the 2.8 when the light gets low, or I don't need any DOF.

I use the 70-200L F2.8 for all types of shots, portraits, flowers, bugs, stuff.....I use the IS during any shot at 1/300th of a second or slower, since I have to add the 1.6x multiplication factor added to the focal length when using the 20D. The shots are always great.....provided I do my part correctly!:D

Mine has never "locked up", not on my 300L F4 IS either. I don't regret either purchase. I do regret I can't afford BIGGER L-GLASS!!

pathfinder

If you are only going to shoot out of doors in daylight, go for the f4. It is cheaper and lighter and smaller. But it is only f4. I envy its lightness at times.

But if you are going to shoot sports indoors, or near sunrise or sunset get the f2.8 It is bigger, heavier and costs more. But you can't buy that extra stop of light later when you decide you want it.

As for IS, don't leave home without it!! Despite what folks will tell you, IS is a great advantage, especially at the long end at 200mm or more if you use the TC.

I will not buy a non-IS lens, if IS is available, I think it is that good.

The 24-105f4 IS L is a great example of why I believe this to be true. I have posted this image before but here it is again shot handheld at 1/15th secs, freehand.



Here is another with a 600mm lens ( 300mm + 2xTC) shot handheld at 1/13th seconds - just try that without IS


I am not suggesting shooting long lenses handheld - tripod mounted is much better, but IS is still useful there also.

I purchased the 70-200f2.8 IS L as one of the first lenses I bought from Canon. I have never regretted it.

If your budget permits, I suggest the 70-200 f2.8 IS L. If not, the other lenses are also great within their optical limitations. Just know and understand what you are buying in advance.

gluwater

pathfinder wrote:

shot handheld at 1/15th secs, freehand.

Here is another with a 600mm lens ( 300mm + 2xTC) shot handheld at 1/13th seconds - just try that without IS

Showoff

I agree with what Jim said. The 2.8 IS is one of my favorite lenses. I agree it does get heavy at times but it is really not that bad. I love the 2.8 for low light and the IS comes in handy. Just remember that IS does not stop action in low light, shutter speed does. If there is any movement the IS will not help, only shutter speed will. If you really are concerned about the weight, the f/4 is much smaller and lighter. Go into a camera shop and compare the two. The best way to compare gear is to see it first hand. Or better yet rent one or both and see how you like it.

Jeffro

gluwater wrote:

Just remember that IS does not stop action in low light, shutter speed does. If there is any movement the IS will not help, only shutter speed will.

.....and that is where the quality of the Canon 20D's high ISO (800 and 1600) comes in handy. Remember tripods, and flashes are usually frowned upon at those school concerts, plays, and other stuff you want to remember. Great High ISO + IS = more memories!

Red Bull

If you have the money, go for the 2.8 IS. If I had the money I would have gotten it. My budget was very tight so I went with the f/4 and I love it. I don't shoot many things indoors with it or in low light, so the f/4 has been perfectly fine for me.

Jus remember that no matter which one you get, it will attract a lot of attention! But thats not always a bad thing.:cool

Scott_Quier

Since you have the money, go for the 2.8 IS. As you can see, I have the sigma 80-400. It weighs 3.8 pounds. It's not that much to schlep around. I've carried it all afternoon, with a tripod. No physiological problems afterward.

pathfinder

Is that the OS version, Scott?? :

How do you like that lens? How does it compare to the Canon 100-400?

juliejules

You'll need the 2.8 for shooting hockey. You need the IS because it's heavy and hard to hold still. You won't regret it!

Mr. 2H2O

I'll toss in opinions from a chat I had with a 20D guy who only shoots L glass. He shoots movement a lot - not fast movement, but people moving and he said the IS does not keep up so he just went for non-IS. He says the thing takes in so much light that he can get the shutter speeds he wants for his type of photography.

Back to the old adage - it depends on what you want to shoot...

Mike

Red Baron

If shooting hockey is in the cards, cross the f/4 off your list. I have the 2.8 non-IS and I still long for faster shutter speeds when shooting hockey - the game is very fast and most hockey arenas have very poor lighting. If you can afford it, go for IS - it's amazing technology and I love it on my 24-105.

claudermilk

I'll throw another vote for the full package: 2.8 IS. From what you say you are planning on using it for in the future (hockey) f2.8 is needed--those rinks are dungeons. IS is vey nice to have when handholding, IMHO even with moving subjects. This lens is at/near the top of the to-get list; I am fortunate in that there is one I can frequently borrow, so I'm waiting for funds to allow my own copy. I have used it for all-day shoots handheld and yes the thing gets to weigh a ton after 6+ hours--but then so would the f4, or any lens for that matter. But I always think of it this way: the back ache is until the evening, the photos are forever.

photon

Holy cow!
Wow, thanks for all the feedback guys... I'll try to summarize:

For aperture, the f/4 is good, but I'll really want an f/2.8 immediately in the near future, for low light or just to allow faster shutter speeds .

IS: this was split. illuminati919 mentioned that the is might lock up on this lens, but no one else on the discussion could confirm. For fast moving subjects, IS isn't going to help, but there are some serious IS fans out there (and I understand where they're coming from) Generally, it might make the lens more versatile, as you can use it in more situations without a tripod.

Weight: suck it up! People have been getting by quite well for extended periods with no permanent, adverse affects.

General comments

• 2.8 IS will be great for hockey and concerts, where low-light prevails and tripods are frowned upon.
• The non-IS 2.8 may be good enough if shooting with enough light to get the fast shutter speeds to eliminate shake.
• I'll never regret the purchase of the 2.8 IS, but I might regret the f/4.

I'm convinced... Sounds like the whole enchilada is the way to go, as most of you suggested, and I won't be sorry for the purchase.

Many thanks for all the feedback... When I get it, I'll post some shots.

Thanks again.

photon

Jeffro wrote:

I use the 70-200L F2.8 for all types of shots, portraits, flowers, bugs, stuff.....I use the IS during any shot at 1/300th of a second or slower, since I have to add the 1.6x multiplication factor added to the focal length when using the 20D. The shots are always great.....provided I do my part correctly!:D

Hey Jeffro, do you find the (rather long) minimum focus distance a help or a hindrance for shooting the smaller stuff, like the flowers and bugs?

DrRichCox

The 2.8L IS is simply great!
My first 2.8L IS had a problem so I had to shoot a day with the IS off. Affter I had the lens replaced, there was a noticeable difference in both quality and the ability to get good shots at very slow shutter speeds. To test it I did a hand held at 1/20 sec at 200mm and got a sharp image. You're right about the weight. I did a half day shoot early on and thought my arms would fall off by the end, The good news is that your body responds and with regular use your arms get stronger!

claudermilk

DrRichCox wrote:

You're right about the weight. I did a half day shoot early on and thought my arms would fall off by the end, The good news is that your body responds and with regular use your arms get stronger!

:lol4 Who needs a fitness club membership? Just go get the biggest IS glass you can & handhold it all day! Canon will pump you up!

Jeffro

photon wrote:

Hey Jeffro, do you find the (rather long) minimum focus distance a help or a hindrance for shooting the smaller stuff, like the flowers and bugs?

I didn't mean it like as in super close or anything. But with and without the 2x tc on it or my 300L F4 I have gotten some nice butterfly shots. I'm just waiting for the day I can buy the 180L f.3.5 Macro..