Canon lens dilemma

UP N MTNS

I know there's alot of this type of question posted but I would like to pose mine for some input...Thanks in advance

I'm looking into getting the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens for my 30D. I shoot almost always(90%) outdoors at a alot of motorcycle racing events, tracks, fast stuff..etc some indoor motorcycle shows but outdoors is where I'm mostly shooting.

I was also looking at the Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM Autofocus, but I really like the idea of going with the f2.8L IS. I'm at a cross road and cant make up my mind. Cost aside could you give me your opinion's on these two lens or any lens that might suit my needs better?

I will also be getting a Extender EF 1.4X II Teleconverter,if that makes any difference.

Thanks to everyone that can shed some light on this for me.

UP N MTNS

z_28

It's always hard to advice, but try 70-200/4L first !
It cost only 1/3 of 70-200/2.8L IS but quality is the same.

UP N MTNS

z_28 wrote:

It's always hard to advice, but try 70-200/4L first !
It cost only 1/3 of 70-200/2.8L IS but quality is the same.

So you dont think I'd benifit from having the IS for the action/motorcycle racing type shooting I'm doing?

Thanks for the response.

gus

UP N MTNS wrote:

So you dont think I'd benifit from having the IS for the action/motorcycle racing type shooting I'm doing?

Thanks for the response.

Honestly if you are mostly always out doors then get the f4 (maybe the f4 IS). I have the 135 f2 prime & when im outside i never ever drop it below f4 for bike sports...its just to shallow at anything lower than f4 & if the light is bad & the sport is fast then its time to put the camera down & just watch.

I would always choose the f4 over the f2.8 for this sort of photography.

Just my 2 bobs worth.

rich56k

UP N MTNS wrote:

So you dont think I'd benifit from having the IS for the action/motorcycle racing type shooting I'm doing?

Thanks for the response.

I also shoot m/c racing -drags & stunting - all outdoors, currently with the 70-200L 2.8 IS on a 20D and have never used the IS - if your shooting at 2.8 or F4 in daylight your shutter speed will be totally fast enough you'll never need the IS,
just my .02....(the 2.8 is available w/o IS for a lot less too)

rich56k

David_S85

IS

Just about anything sports and focals over 150mm you'll get 90% of us suggesting Image Stabilized lenses. Better chance of getting keeper shots with IS.

Is 200 going to be enough reach for your planned shooting?

The 70-200 f/4 L IS is certainly good for outdoor well-lit situations, and its lighter. If shooting in dimmer light, then the 2.8 is probably one of Canon's best selling lenses for all-purpose sports and for good reasons.

Don't skimp. Get the good stuff and you can't go wrong. And if you do go wrong, there will always be an ample supply of buyers for a 2.8 L IS.

UP N MTNS

Heres the break down for the best price's I could find :

EF 70-200mm f4L USM $529.95

EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM $984.95

EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM $1139.95 comes with tri-pod ring

EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM $1599.95 comes with tri-pod ring

Are these prices about the going rate? Anyone who can point me in a cheaper direction please do.

Thanks

UP N MTNS

David_S85 wrote:

IS
Is 200 going to be enough reach for your planned shooting?

I will also be getting a Extender EF 1.4X II Teleconverter.

David_S85 wrote:

Don't skimp. Get the good stuff and you can't go wrong.

That's my way of thinking, but on the same hand I just want to make sure I'm not tossing cash to the wind...

z_28

My original advice is still valid - start with 70-200/4L
If it will not work for you, you can sell it very fast.
First hand experience is worth 1000 advices

gus

David_S85 wrote:

IS

.

Yeah IS will make it a bit more versatile for general stuff like weddings etc other than sports.

luke_church

UP N MTNS wrote:

I know there's alot of this type of question posted but I would like to pose mine for some input...Thanks in advance

I bought the 70-200 L f/4 about 15 months ago. Recently I bought the f/2.8 IS version, to suplement it. I also bought the 1.4x II. (And no, I'm not just pointlessy afluent, so neither of these were casual decisions... )

Logic: I'm in the UK, the weather sucks for about 3 months of the year, I was finding that I was fighting the shutter speed on the f/4 almost all the time at the long end. But it's a superb lens.

I wanted to add the 1.4x to do some wildlife photography. That drops the aperature to f/5.6 and increases the focal length. There is no way I'm going to be getting [EMAIL="1/500@f/5.6"]1/500@f/5.6[/EMAIL] in the UK for most of the winter. OK, so I can hand-hold a fair bit slower than that, but it really is pushing it. Also, the camera is then at the limit of its autofocus capability, that isn't great for performance. The final decision point was that I needed to start photographing dramatic performances. The f/4 lens was really struggling to even focus, and forget hand-held use, even at ISO 1600.

---

So I bought the 2.8 IS, which I find is much more practical for the kind of work that I wanted to do. Even with the teleconverter I can shoot at full ~450mm equivalent, without a monopod most of the time. Drama performance has yet to be tested... So far so good, I love it.

Strong added bonus: At 450mm, IS does actually help with framing. I had originally dismissed this as marketing hype, but I can notice how much easier framing is, esp. if I'm trying to react quickly with IS turned on than without it.

But there are disadvantages:

Cost -> It's much more expensive (obviously). There is also the side effect that I'm less willing to risk damaging it than I was the 70-200. In 'hostile' environments, e.g. near dense salt water spray or sand or environemnts where I think someone might try and 'borrow' my camera, I'll probably take the f/4.

Weight -> It's heavy. Monopods help if you're in one place for a while. It'll be the f/4 that goes up mountains with me.

IS won't help your shutter speed if you need to freeze the bikes. (But the extra stop certainly will)

Batteries -> IS seems to drink battery power.

I will also be getting a Extender EF 1.4X II Teleconverter,if that makes any difference.

As implied above, I certainly think it does. Unless it's insanely good weather were you are, I suspect you'll find yourself buying the f/2.8 IS a while after you bought the f/4....

But I guess it says something that I prefered to hang on to my f/4 version as well....

ziggy53

Wow, lots of great advice and opinion here.

Here's mine:

If you shoot at night, or ever plan to, you really need the f2.8. The EF 70-200mm, f4L is a great lightweight lens, but that extra stop, of the f2.8, means twice the shutter speed, and for night stuff, that can make all the difference between sharp and motion blur. The I.S. is nice, but it's almost always better to use a tripod or monopod.

The other nice thing about the f2.8L version is that you can use a 1.4x teleconverter on it in the 100-200mm range, which gets you to an f4, 280mm very inexpensively. (Quality is not bad at all.)

So my recommendation is the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L (with or without IS) and a 1.4x teleconverter and a decent tripod for best results.

If you ever do decide to get a 1D MKII/MKIIN/MKIII, the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L is almost ideal on that camera in terms of responsiveness and accuracy. My keeper rate doubled when I switched to the 1D MKII for night HS football. Some of the small fields are just awfully dark, and the XT I was using couldn't predict accurately enough. The XT autofocus is very similar to the autofocus in the Canon 20D. The 30D seems to be improved over the 20D, so you might not experience as much improvement as I did.

howard

OK let me muddy the water a little. There's no doubting that the 70-200/2.8 IS is a great lens, and when you're challenged by low light I doubt you can find a better solution. However at those focal lengths you may not get enough DOF at f2.8, maybe check DOFmaster website to be sure. For about the price of the 2.8 IS version of the zoom you can get the f4 non IS version AND a 300 f4 IS. Add your intended 1.4x to the mix and you get out to 420 f5.6 with IS. For your intended use it may be worth considering. Just my 0.02

aktse

UP N MTNS wrote:

EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM $1599.95 comes with tri-pod ring

Are these prices about the going rate? Anyone who can point me in a cheaper direction please do.

Thanks

As for the the 2.8 IS, there is a very good deal right now due to the combo of the canon rebates and the bh special code pages. You should be able to get a new one for about $1400 right now.

I have the 2.8 IS and just love it. I recently added the 1.4x II and the two makes a very wonderful combination!

UP N MTNS

aktse wrote:

As for the the 2.8 IS, there is a very good deal right now due to the combo of the canon rebates and the bh special code pages. You should be able to get a new one for about $1400 right now.

Thanks to everyone that chimed in on this...

I'm made up my mind and will be going with the 2.8 IS...one last question, where do I find the bh "speacial codes page"?
There main page list the 70-200mm f2.8 IS for $1699.95 with an $100.00 instant rebate knocking it down to $1599.95...... I would love to get it down in the $1400.00 range like aktse stated above.

David_S85

UP N MTNS wrote:

Thanks to everyone that chimed in on this...
I'm made up my mind and will be going with the 2.8 IS...one last question, where do I find the bh "speacial codes page"?
There main page list the 70-200mm f2.8 IS for $1699.95 with an $100.00 instant rebate knocking it down to $1599.95...... I would love to get it down in the $1400.00 range like aktse stated above.

In BH search, type *psmay07*
If you change the dropdown to alphabetically, then it is on page two.

UP N MTNS

David_S85 wrote:

In BH search, type *psmay07*
If you change the dropdown to alphabetically, then it is on page two.

Thanks David