which 70-200 Lenses

[fletch5]

Ok, been looking and thinking i made up my mind, and ive seen loads of questions on this about, but i want to know which one you lot picked and why?

also if your happy with it.

is there any alternatives to the f4 IS by the other makes that are any good?

thank you for the help

[oldgit]

I got the f2.8 IS and I love it.
Sometimes wonder if the f4 IS would be more manageable because its less than half the weight, but then I'd miss the bokeh and f2.8.

[petebarnes]

I have the regular f4 (non IS) and it's a belter, but I am getting the 2.8IS for low light, if it does what the cheapest one does indoors I'll be chuffed. If you are mostly shooting outdoor the f4 is fine

[fletch5]

im thinking the f4 IS myself, indoor use, but handheld, and the weight of the 2.8is would be a problem

thanks for the fast responses

am i right in saying the other manufacturerers (sigma, tamron etc) dont do anything similar to the f4?

[fletch5]

any others?

[marky_h]

Neither Sigma's nor Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 offerings have IS (or OS, or VR, being strictly accurate). However the Sigma has a pretty good reputation, especially the non-Macro version (the last but one model) which is pretty sharp. The Tamron version is pretty new, and so I've not seen much discussion about it nor shots taken with it yet, let alone a side-by-side comparison with like models. I'm sure one of the magazines will pick up on this as a supertest before long.

[mrgubby]

I've got the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, it's not got IS but I've got no use for it anyway :)

[8utters]

Sigma do a 70-200 equivelent, don't really know anything about it becuase I only buy Canon L seris lenses :D

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS. Great lens, I personally don't find it too heavy actually.

[fletch5]

yeah, i gotta share mine with the missus though

[admirable]

If they were all the same price what one would you buy?

[wez130]

70-200 F/2.8 L IS without a shadow of a doubt

[dod]

my order of preference

Canon F4
Sigma F2.8
Canon F2.8IS

Only reason I keep the Canon F2.8IS is the weatherproofing. Both the others were sharper and quicker focussing for me. Never tried the F4IS.

[jason90]

I've got the sigma and it takes some great shots, the AF is pretty quick IMHO, I have often thought about getting the 2.8L but im not sure if it would be any sharper

[Eric Mc]

Don't discount the Sigma 2.8 it's a fantastic lens and as sharp as Canon's 2.8L;)

Sigma do a 70-200 equivelent, don't really know anything about it becuase I only buy Canon L seris lenses :D



Canon make a 50mm 1.8L now ? :eek: ;)

[AliB]

I asked a similar question only last week because I was considering a 70-200mm f2.8. I already have the Canon f4 IS.

In the end I bought a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8. (Not the latest DG Macro but the one before it) It arrived yesterday and I'm planning on doing some side by side tests with it and the Canon. From a brief play about with it last night (before the bathwater came through the kitchen ceiling) it is very quick to focus and a lot quiter than the Canon. The separation between subject and background is really good and relatively easy to control. I tried it with our two dogs in the front room and spot metered, again the focus was quick and quiet.

To be honest I'm quitely impressed with what I've seen so far. Hoping to have some more practice with it at the weekend.

Oh and yes I acknowledge that the Canon 2.8IS is the top dog but I'm small and the weight was a deciding factor for me.

[Les McLean]

Don't discount the Sigma 2.8 it's a fantastic lens and as sharp as Canon's 2.8L;)



Canon make a 50mm 1.8L now ? :eek: ;)

Agree totaly with this view-and around half the price

[dod]

Oh and yes I acknowledge that the Canon 2.8IS is the top dog but I'm small and the weight was a deciding factor for me.

I'd disagree with that Ali. With the one's I've used the F2.8IS is soundly third out of three. This is just my opinion but I think part of the problem is that having spent so much cash on one, people feel they have to believe it's the best in order to justify it.

I was chatting to CT about it the other night and I'm at the stage of trying one of the F4IS with a view to trading my F2.8IS back in.

[Slim3001]

I have the sigma 70-200mm not the new one with macro the one just befor that and i love it sharp as a button most of the time.

[AliB]

I'll doff my hat to you then Dod. I've not tried the f2.8 IS and you have. It's what it's all about, trying and testing.

I have to say I'm well chuffed with the Sigma, a fleabay bargain for £350.

[wack61]

I have the F4L and i'm really impressed with it, light, fast focussing and handy to have in the kit bag, I also have a sigma 120-300mm and a hernia

[Witch]

Mine is the 70-200 f2.8 IS. To take your questions in some kind of order, I picked it because for what I do most of - speedway shooting - it's the best lens for the job, as witness the fact that nearly every speedway snapper half way serious about it has one of them in their kit bag. Bought mine second hand, but in all honesty if it hadn;t come up when it did, I would have bought new eventually anyway. I love it - if I had to choose a lens of the same type again tomorrow I'd choose the same thing without a shadow of a doubt. It is heavy though!

[fletch5]

thanks everyone for the replies, much appreciated

[digitalfailure]

I have the sigma 70-200 non macro, I tested it back to back in the shop and reviewed the images......no difference in sharpness and in real life use no difference in focus speed.

I used to think it was a little soft at 2.8, but it was more to do with the shallow DoF :D

Yes IS would have been nice to really get all the bases covered, but I quite like the lack of extra weight too.

[fletch5]

so i assume they are all about on par, image quality and consistancy in build?

[AliB]

I think it very much depends on exactly what you want to use it for. I bought the Sigma because I wanted the f2.8 for a wedding or two that I'm assisting at. I'm still holding onto my Canon f4 IS until the Sigma proves itself though.

The Canon's are built like brick ********* but I honestly can't complain about the Sigma either. If you ask Canon Bob he rates the Canon's in order of preference for particular applications quite honestly.

In short it really is horses for courses, define what you want it do do first and make your choices based on that, besides, you can always change your mind ;)

[fletch5]

thanks for the reply aliB.

i have been internet trawling and found a sigma 50-150 2.8, which seems to have approx same dimensions as the canon f4l. anyone know if its any good?

[Kerioak]

I have only used one the 2.8 IS but love it and do not find the weight a problem even when carrying it around all day. After reading all the queries about its weight before I bought it, I did wonder, but my handbags have weighed more at times and if you are used to holding a camera in shooting position you soon get used to it.

[WeddingHack]

The 2.8 IS for me - if you're going to be working indoors - with available light ? - then I think you'll find that f4 is not fast enough.

I've often worked wedding ceremonies in dark churches at ISO1600, f2.8, 1/60 @ 200mm handheld - there's no other lens that can let you do that.

Here's one from the back of the church a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/080405_009-after.jpg

[fletch5]

good pic there. i assume it was the canon? gonna have to rethink this abit perhaps

[WeddingHack]

Yep Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, at the settings I mentioned.

[Gilly B]

I agree with Duncan. I ummed and arred for months as you guys will probably remember in 2007. I finally plumped for the Canon 70-200 2.8IS version. I do weddings and having had 2 weddings during the floods last July where we all had to stay in the dark church for photographs. The vicar wouldn't allow flash and I wasn't happy with the lenses I was using either. I needed something that was quick and good in low light. I also agree with Keri that is is very heavy. I am only 4' 10" and struggle a bit with the weight - however, bought a study monopod with quick release plate which helps when lugging it around.

[fletch5]

Do you find the IS worth the money?

[Magpie70]

I definitely think IS is worth the extra cash. Since I got the IS version of the 70-200f2.8, far more of my photos seem to be sharper and in focus. Talking about the weight, although this lens is heavy compared to the other versions, it isn't enormous, you quickly get used to it. Now carrying the 500mm about; that is a heavy, my arms are killing after lugging it around this morning. Incidentely I carry the canon 500mm and the 70-200 and find it okay. I think the weight issue is quite subjective really.
Mark.

[WeddingHack]

The IS is vital shooting handheld in low light - at the 200mm end you would need at least 1/200 shutter speed to get a clear shot handheld. With the IS, that drops down to 1/60

[Gilly B]

The IS is vital shooting handheld in low light - at the 200mm end you would need at least 1/200 shutter speed to get a clear shot handheld. With the IS, that drops down to 1/60

Agree!

[Brianb]

Agree totaly with this view-and around half the price

I also agree 100%, I have the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG Macro, and it's great.
Brian

[fletch5]

I also agree 100%, I have the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG Macro, and it's great.
Brian

unfortunately it doesnt have IS, so would be no good handheld. (i think)

[Migs]

Hi, I have the Sigma 2.8 and is great!!!!!! not mention the price.....
Good luck

[Brianb]

unfortunately it doesnt have IS, so would be no good handheld. (i think)

I have not found this to be a problem, as you can always up your shutter speed or up the ISO.
With newer cameras 800 ISO is not a problem.
Brian

[WeddingHack]

as you can always up your shutter speed or up the ISO.


... assuming there is enough light.