which 70-200?

Elaine

I'm planning ahead for my (hopefully) next lens purchase, a 70-200. As I see it, the Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS is out of my price range for now. So, I think that leaves me with four options:

Canon 70-200 2.8 L - $1140 at B&H
Sigma 70-200 2.8 II Macro - $979 at B&H
Canon 70-200 4 L IS - $984 at B&H
Canon 70-200 4 L - $539 at B&H

I'm thinking the optics would be very nice in all of these, so the decision comes down to details like 2.8 vs. 4 and IS vs. non-IS. The first three are close enough in price to consider them nearly the same; the last one has a very appealing price and I'm wondering if the f/4, non-IS would be a nice entrance into this range.

If I decide that the non-IS is a deal breaker, then it bumps me up to the next price level, where I need to decide if 2.8 is more important or if IS is more important. If the IS was important enough to bump me to this range to begin with, then the decision would seem to be the 70-200 4 L IS.

If I decide that the non-2.8 is a deal breaker, then my choices are between the top two on the list, and why shouldn't I choose the L lens? Unless the Sigma is supposed to be even better?

OK...if you've made it this far, I appreciate it. If there is something else I should consider, I'd like to hear it. Thanks!

cmason

At the higher prices, I would stick with the L lenses. I see no reason to spend that much on the Sigma, when you are in the ballpark of the L.

As for IS vs non-IS...this really depends on your subject. I use my 200mm mostly for kids sports and some landscape. In these cases, the light is usually bright enough so that shutter speed is above shake levels, or I am using a tripod anyway. I have used it for portrait work outdoors, but again, the light is usually very good. So to me, I haven't seen a need for IS on this lens.

I think 2.8 would allow me to use the lens more often at 'magic hour', especially dusk, where it fails at f4. That would be great. And the 2.8 will work with the 2x extender, whereas the f4 will only support the 1.4x.

The f4 is a wonderful, fairly lightweight and compact lens. It is a joy to use and carry around. It is physically the size of a soda can, but 1.5 cans tall. I really love this lens. I dont now pine for a 2.8, and really, at $500ish it is the bargain of the century.

The Curious Camel

Hi Elaine, I have the f4 70-200 and it's a good lens but if you can afford the f 2.8 L Is 70-200 get it. I know someone who has it and said it is the sweetest and the optics are fantastic.

Here is a link I don't know if your familiar with may could help. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Good luck, gail

gus

Elaine wrote:

then the decision would seem to be the 70-200 4 L IS.

That would def be my choice. Because the sport etc that i do is never done under f4 (i like some depth of field) & now that ive tried IS first hand...i am very addicted to it.

Ozone

I have the 70-200 2.8L IS, and I used it at the magic hour just the other day. The optics are very sharp and I can still freeze most motion. In my mind, the extra spent on it was worth it. That said, the non-IS version of the 2.8 would probably suit your price range, just make sure you have a sturdy tripod!

Rockporters

Elaine wrote:

I'm planning ahead for my (hopefully) next lens purchase, a 70-200. As I see it, the Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS is out of my price range for now. So, I think that leaves me with four options:

Canon 70-200 2.8 L - $1140 at B&H
Sigma 70-200 2.8 II Macro - $979 at B&H
Canon 70-200 4 L IS - $984 at B&H
Canon 70-200 4 L - $539 at B&H

I'm thinking the optics would be very nice in all of these, so the decision comes down to details like 2.8 vs. 4 and IS vs. non-IS. The first three are close enough in price to consider them nearly the same; the last one has a very appealing price and I'm wondering if the f/4, non-IS would be a nice entrance into this range.

If I decide that the non-IS is a deal breaker, then it bumps me up to the next price level, where I need to decide if 2.8 is more important or if IS is more important. If the IS was important enough to bump me to this range to begin with, then the decision would seem to be the 70-200 4 L IS.

If I decide that the non-2.8 is a deal breaker, then my choices are between the top two on the list, and why shouldn't I choose the L lens? Unless the Sigma is supposed to be even better?

OK...if you've made it this far, I appreciate it. If there is something else I should consider, I'd like to hear it. Thanks!

Hi Elaine, I just went through this same dilemma. The Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS is an awesome lens! Colors are vibrant, it's fast, and excellent image quality, you can't go wrong. Even bad photos, which I'm great at , are crystal clear at 100%.

Hubby bought me the Canon f2.8 L IS for Christmas, but in the end I returned it, and kept the 70-200mm f4 L IS. Don't get me wrong, the 2.8 is a really wonderful lens, too, and quite capable of the colors/image quality. However, it is a little soft wide open, and it's output of perfectly clear images taken off the cuff was actually lower than the f4. I've read the f4 has a newer IS system, so maybe that has something to do with it ?

Think about whether you really need the 2.8 or not, if not, definitely go with the f4 L IS. Having used the IS now, I'm not sure I'd want to go with a non-IS version, but that might just be a personal preference. Can't offer any opinions on the Sigma, have never had the opportunity to use it.

Good luck!

Richard

I don't think you can go wrong with any of the Canons. Don't know much about the Sigma. I think the choice depends entirely on what you think you will be shooting with it. The f/4 L costs less than half the f/2.8 IS, which (to me) is a big difference. I think you can expect to get what you pay for here, so it really comes down to what you need.

BTW, I have the f/4L and love it. I mostly shoot hand-held and it is manageable without a tripod. And yes, IS would likely make it better, but I make do by bumping up the ISO when the light gets dim.

Regards,

DJ-S1

I had the f4 (loved it) and upgraded to the f2.8 (love it). Both non-IS. Other than what has already been mentioned here, there is a noticeable increase in weight. If you are going to be carrying this around all the time that's something to consider. The comfy Smugmug strap helps a lot!

Also the "holy crap" factor jumps a bit. I could usually blend in with the f4, but the 2.8 is big enough that it really attracts attention.

I would seriously consider buying used from DGrin. I have gotten great deals, and you'd be hard-pressed to tell they weren't new lenses.

Scott_Quier

Elaine,

If you are going to be shooting inside, using ambient light (i.e., say a wedding...), then the f/2.8 is almost a must. Less important is the IS, but is sure is nice as it can really give you another stop or two of hand-holdability if your subject is not moving (as you know, IS doesn't stop subject movement).

The question then comes down to, "How soon do you NEED the lens?" If you have time to save the difference between the f/2.8 and the f/2.8 IS, I would recommend you do that. Delayed gratification can be a beautiful thing. On the other hand, if you need the lens sooner rather than later, get the f/2.8 L, then when you have the $$ and/or the need for it, sell that and buy the f/2.8 L IS ("L" glass tends to keep a very large percentage of their value when it comes time for re-sale). If you can find one, buy one used and let someone else eat the depreciation .

urbanaries has (or had, don't know if she sold it or not) Sigma and had nothing but good things to say about it. I had an opportunity to see it at Shay Stephens Wedding Photography Boot Camp and I must say that build quality is right up there.

swintonphoto

Get the Canon 70-200 4 L IS
The IS will get you the extra light capture capability you would have with the 2.8, but is smaller and easier to hold. The 4 IS and the 2.8 are both fantastic lenses, but, the 2.8 is too big (in my opinion). I would go for the 4 IS - gets you extra light with the IS, and is a great size to carry.

Rockporters

Hi Elaine, thank you for your help with the 17-55, I really appreciate it!

The 2.8 is significantly heavier, although it doesn't take long to get used to it, and it's a conversation piece. I was taking test sunset photos at the state pier, and within a 10 minute span (no kidding!) I was approached by two elderly couples suggesting places for me to photograph, and a policeman wanting to know what I was taking photos of. Had the 4 with me, too, but not one person approached when it was on the camera .

You can't go wrong with either one, it is a great lens regardless. After selling the 17-40mm L I missed the quality for a while, but no more, the 70-200mm IQ is so far beyond that I can't imagine going back!

claudermilk

Any of the Canon lenses are a great choice. Without knowing more what you intend to shoot with it, we cannot really make a good recommendation--those made so far are probably based on what the poster already owns. :poke

At photozone the f4L IS has the highest sharpness results, the others are so tightly grouped it doesn't make much difference, though the f2.8 non-IS is a bit more consistent. So, it really gets down to is the f2.8 more important than the IS, and how much of a factor is the lens weight?

For me weight is not a factor, and the f2.8 decisively trumps IS. So I went with the non-IS f2.8.

rpcrowe

It depends on your shooting agenda...
I love my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and use it 3-4x more often than I ever used the previous non-IS model that I owned. The difference was not because of image quality since I truly believe (despite pixel peepers stating that the IS lens has better IQ) that you would be hard pressed to pick out from a selection of images which were shot with which lens.

The reason that I use my present lens so much more often lies in the wonderful IS. The IS frees me from the need to use a tripod or monopod when the light is not very bright. I can shoot the IS lens cranked all the way out using 1/60 second shutter speed and have every confidence that I will get sharp images. At 1/30 second using 200mm; my keeper ratio is lower but, I still have confidence that I will get a fair share of sharp images.

Lacking IS; I need a shutter speed shorter than 1/FL especially when I am shooting longer focal length lenses. As an example, I can pretty well hold a camera steady at 1/60 second using a 50mm focal length but I need a speed shorter than 1/200 second when I shoot at 200mm. This is definitely the case when there is wind present. I used to be able to hold a camera steadier but age has taken its toll and I am not as steady as I once was.

I love the 70-200mm f/4L IS as a general purpose walk around lens. The relative light weight and compact size makes it ideal for a travel companion either when I am using it with the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina and 24-70mm f/2.8L or if I pair the 70-200mm f/4L IS with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.

The one agenda for which I would consider the f/2.8 IS lens a slight favorite is in shooting team or individual sports. The f/2.8 has a more shallow depth of field which can isolate players. When I shoot those types of sports, I am usually not running around a whole lot and I can use a monopod to good advantage. Shooting a sporting event like a football game is also relatively short (time-wise) and I normally don't need to lug the lens around for longer than three hours or so. Of course, I can also get one-stop more shutter speed when using the f/2.8.

However, a 200mm f/4 lens shot wide open has a pretty shallow depth of field itself and I could not hold a 200mm f/2.8 lens steady at 1/125 second. I can do that with ease using the IS. That 1/125 second on an IS lens will equate to 1/60 second on an f/4 lens. I would need a tripod or monopod for the f/2.8 lens in that level of light.

IMO, the touted advantage of being able to use a 2x TC on an f/2.8 lens is really a hollow advantage. The 2x extender doesn't provide the level of IQ that I demand and that IQ is the reason I use an "L" lens to begin with. The 1.4x TC works just fine with the 70-200mm f/4L class of lenses. It delivers sharp imagery and doesn't slow down the A/F to any great degree.

saurora

One thing in your favor Elaine, is that you have the 40D and the capability to shoot at a high ISO and get great results. In the past you might have needed the 2.8 just to avoid grainy shots. Now you truly could consider the f/4 and just bump up the ISO. My recommendation is to buy 2.8 if you are seriously considering weddings. And, like Scott said, if you can wait and save for it, the IS will be the icing on the (wedding) cake. As has been said, you can buy what you can afford now (if you can't wait) and trade up. Have fun and get the most that you can afford!

Martyn

swintonphoto wrote:

Get the Canon 70-200 4 L IS
The IS will get you the extra light capture capability you would have with the 2.8, but is smaller and easier to hold. The 4 IS and the 2.8 are both fantastic lenses, but, the 2.8 is too big (in my opinion). I would go for the 4 IS - gets you extra light with the IS, and is a great size to carry.

My thoughts exactly.

I had planned to buy the 2.8 IS, but after compairring them at the shop I went for the f4.0 IS. I hadn't realised how heavy the f2.8 was and felt that it would be left at home too much whereas the f4 goes with me to most places.

z_28

I was lucky and got all of them,
my lineup is :

2.8L - medium heavy, good priced, 2.8 of course
4L - great price, light, lack of tripod mount
2.8L IS - heavy, big, expensive
4L IS - expensive, mine was optically the worst in entire pack (including 70-210/4) , lack of tripod mount too

But choice is always your's
Money too

swintonphoto

z_28 wrote:

I was lucky and got all of them,
my lineup is :

2.8L - medium heavy, good priced, 2.8 of course
4L - great price, light, lack of tripod mount
2.8L IS - heavy, big, expensive
4L IS - expensive, mine was optically the worst in entire pack (including 70-210/4) , lack of tripod mount too

:jawdrop

Shorthair

Being new, my 2 cents is probably worth less than a penny but here it is: I have been looking and studying on the same question for 2 months and for my money I'm ordering the f/4L IS. From what I've gathered it's just better all around and general use and also owning the 40D I can bump up the ISO to help the twilight situations. I have heard several say that they rarely shoot the 2.8 version wide open because it gets soft. I will say that for me IS is essential, I'm 36 y.o. but I have always had a problem keeping steady hands so it helps me a lot!--Bran

claudermilk

Agreed. ALL of them? I don't see why even given the ability why you'd want all four in your bag.

IMO, the touted advantage of being able to use a 2x TC on an f/2.8 lens is really a hollow advantage. The 2x extender doesn't provide the level of IQ that I demand and that IQ is the reason I use an "L" lens to begin with.

What touted advantage? The 2.8 on a 2x, or even a 1.4x IMHO sucks. Like you said, the IQ is gone under all but the most optimal circumstances. From the vast majority of postings I've seen, the general wisdom is TCs on zooms are a bad idea (with a few exceptions such as the Sigma 100-300/4), while primes generally work fine.

Photoskipper

Weight matter
Recommend to get the 70-200 F4 IS.

I own a 70-200 F2.8 IS on a 5D. Its total weight of 5 lbs before the battery grip and flash gun. It is not so easy to carry around and walk

F4 is only half of the weight of F2.8.

For wedding photo, you need to have more than one lens and other accessories. You also need to move around and react fast. The high ISO and IS give you extra muscle to do the job with reasonable weight in the bag.

Again, the tripod collar is not essential for wedding. It is only use for the group photo and static shoots.

unless you plan to mount a 2X for bird photo, otherwise the F4 is sufficient to do most of job.

z_28

swintonphoto wrote:

:jawdrop

You know - it's not about Olympus for sure scratch

z_28

claudermilk wrote:

Agreed. ALL of them? I don't see why even given the ability why you'd want all four in your bag.

All in time, not all at the moment

gus

z_28 wrote:

All in time, not all at the moment

So what are you saying here then. You have all these lenses at the moment or its a shopping list ?

z_28

I HAD ALL of them !

Is something not clear enough ???

ziggy53

z_28 wrote:

I HAD ALL of them !

Is something not clear enough ???

I believe z_28 has used and owned all of these lenses in the past, and finally settled upod the EF 70-200mm, f4L, with the single caveat he noted of no tripod collar.

ziggy53

For myself, I appreciate the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L because at many receptions the light is really poor and I need the f2.8 to give more reasonable cycling of the flash and to yield better separation of the subjects within the context of the reception hall through reduced DOF.

Yes, it is a heavy lens and yes, along with the Canon 1D MKII, it gets to be a handful through the event, but the benefits are pretty well worth it to me. (1,310g/2.9 lbs. for the lens, 1555g/3.5 lbs for the camera plus battery.)

I typically use it along with the EF 28-80mm, f2.8-4L which is itself a beast at 945g/2.1 lbs. Add a flash and bracket and you're talking serious heft.

claudermilk

z_28 wrote:

All in time, not all at the moment

OK, I got it. Serial monogamy.

Recommend to get the 70-200 F4 IS.

I have to disagree with simply recommending the f4 version of the lens just based on a) it's lighter and b) it works for you. Elaine hasn't mentioned what the intended use for the lens is. :poke

The non-IS f4 is a nice, relatively inexpensive entry to the line. However, if you need the speed of the f2.8, it won't do--cost and weight advantages notwithstanding. Adding IS helps with static subjects, but as we have discussed many times before it does nothing for subject motion.

All the lenses are excellent so you cannot go far wrong with any of them. Really if gets down to do you need the f2.8 aperture speed? Is the pricetag and weight cost worth it. Will the f4 IS be a good compromise there?

I cannot comment directly on the Sigma. From reviews I've read it apparently is in the ballpark of the Canons for image quality, but AF response is not as good.

Elaine

claudermilk wrote:

...
I have to disagree with simply recommending the f4 version of the lens just based on a) it's lighter and b) it works for you. Elaine hasn't mentioned what the intended use for the lens is. :poke
...

Wow! It's been great to read all the different responses about these lenses. To answer claudermilk's :poke, I mainly shoot people (portraits) and I enjoy nature/landscapes, too. I'd like to have better reach for the backyard birds and squirrels. I don't really plan to shoot weddings, at least not on a regular basis. I can see how a 2.8 would be helpful in that situation. However, I do take pics at my church sometimes, and using my 2.8 and 1.8 (85mm) lenses there has been nice.
I ended up getting the 17-55 2.8 over the 24-105 4 for my first all-purpose sort of lens, and I'm very happy about the decision. However, I use the 17-55 indoors a lot, where the 2.8 really is nice, but the 70-200 would be an outdoor lens (except for church sometimes), so I'm thinking I could get away with the f/4. And I think I've decided I want the IS, no matter f/4 or 2.8.
With my last system, I had what's known as "the beercan" in Minolta land. It was a tank of a lens, 70-210 f/4. It wasn't as sharp wide-open as I would have liked and it weighed a ton, so I wasn't thrilled to use it as much as I thought I might. I know if I get a lens in this length that really works well for me that I'd probably use it quite a bit.
Thanks for all the help, folks!

rpcrowe

Tripod Collar for 70-200mm f/4L lenses
A tripod collar is a good addition to either the IS or non-IS version of this lens. It facilitates changing from landscape to portrait position as well as allowing you to tweak the horizon a bit in order to level it. I have a tripod collar and I use it whenever I am mounting the camera/lens combination on a tripod or monopod. Unfortunately the Canon version carries a pretty hefty price tag.

That said, the tripod collar is not "absolutely" essential when using a 70-200mmm f/4L lens. The lens is light enough to be used when the camera body is mounted on the tripod/monopod. I would, however, be very careful carrying the camera/lens while mounted in the tripod/monopod at the body. IMO carrying the camera/lens while mounted would put a lot more strain on the tripod socket that actually just shooting would. I could be perfectly OK to carry the unit this way, maybe I am just being overly cautious.

IMO, the collar is less essential on an IS model because I believe that photographers may use the IS model more often hand-held that they would use the non-IS model. At least this has been my experience with these two lenses.

By the way, a very nice combination of lenses is the 70-200mm f/4 (either version) and the 400mm f/5.6L. The IS lens would cover the shorter focal lengths very well while the 400mm would give you extra reach. I mention this because the tripod collar for the 400mm f/5.6L is identical to the one used for the 70-200mm f/4L. If you have the 400mm, yous should have its tripod collar since the collar is packaged with the lens.

The Canon Black tripod collar is also a bit less expensive than the "white" model.

I have not seen an example the Chinese Rip-Off Canon tripod collars sold on eBay but, the manufacture of a tripod collar isn't exactly brain surgery and they would probably work - IF THEY ARE SECURE.

gus

z_28 wrote:

I HAD ALL of them !

Is something not clear enough ???

My friend you seem to be struggling with your general behaviour in the forum and the tone in your replys. You have been warned many times. Consider this a final from me ok.

claudermilk

Elaine wrote:

Wow! It's been great to read all the different responses about these lenses. To answer claudermilk's :poke, I mainly shoot people (portraits) and I enjoy nature/landscapes, too. I'd like to have better reach for the backyard birds and squirrels. I don't really plan to shoot weddings, at least not on a regular basis. I can see how a 2.8 would be helpful in that situation. However, I do take pics at my church sometimes, and using my 2.8 and 1.8 (85mm) lenses there has been nice.
I ended up getting the 17-55 2.8 over the 24-105 4 for my first all-purpose sort of lens, and I'm very happy about the decision. However, I use the 17-55 indoors a lot, where the 2.8 really is nice, but the 70-200 would be an outdoor lens (except for church sometimes), so I'm thinking I could get away with the f/4. And I think I've decided I want the IS, no matter f/4 or 2.8.
With my last system, I had what's known as "the beercan" in Minolta land. It was a tank of a lens, 70-210 f/4. It wasn't as sharp wide-open as I would have liked and it weighed a ton, so I wasn't thrilled to use it as much as I thought I might. I know if I get a lens in this length that really works well for me that I'd probably use it quite a bit.
Thanks for all the help, folks!

OK, with that information it does sound like the f4 is indeed your best bet. You will be happy to note that photozone got the highest sharpness results from the f4 IS variant, and the general buzz I've heard on the lens backs that up.