70-200 Decision making!

W

Woodsie

Messages
173
Edit My Images
No
Hello,

I need some help deciding which lens to go for and I need your expert advice :)

It's between the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the f/4 IS, I will be shooting all sorts such as motor sport, aircraft, maybe a bit of sports such as football and ice hockey. Eventually I would like to try my hand at some wedding photography/portrait work.

From what I have been reading the f4 is marginally sharper and has the better IS but this will be useless in sports. I am wondering whether I but the 2.8IS and don't look back knowing I have the best of best or settle for less and put the money saved towards a fast prime (85/1.8 maybe?).
Could some owners please give me their thoughts as I have spent an age on forums and comparison pages and I feel no further along!
I realize this has probably been done many times over but I just can't find any conclusive evidence to help!
Thanks for any help!
 
2.8 all the way for me, the extra stop will be worth its weight in gold over time, especially for weddings in low light churches etc
 
2.8 for me too, if you need the extra reach you can attach the 1.4x teleconverter. I've heard the 2x converter does horrible things to the IQ.
 
I would say the 2.8 also
The F4 does have a better IS, but if u have a stop more of light you can achieve much higher shutter speeds meaning you wont need the IS that you would of done on the F4 :p

Cheers
Jamie
 
If you can afford 2.8 it's always the way to go for motorsport, IS isn't nearly as important as fast glass
 
I've had all four versions and it's the 2.8 IS that's sitting in the cupboard...if you're getting a zoom for flexibility then you might aswell get all the flexibility you can.

Bob
 
Buy the Nikon 70-200 f2.8, and then buy a body to go with it :exit:
 
Canon Bob said:
I've had all four versions and it's the 2.8 IS that's sitting in the cupboard...if you're getting a zoom for flexibility then you might aswell get all the flexibility you can.

Bob
Click to expand...

I might be reading that wrong.....but surely the wider app and the IS makes the 2.8 IS the most flexible out of the 4.

:thinking:


the 2.8 IS is an impressive bit of kit, but sadly it has an impressive price too.
 
I've got the f/4 L IS and I've never shot at f/4. Whenever I pan I have the shutter speed on 1/60 to 1/125 and the aperture is always on something like f/16 as anything bigger will completely over-expose the image.

Where is f/2.8 useful? To this day, I've never needed f/4 so I can't imagine needing f/2.8 unless you're shooting on a very, very dark day?
 
Take this for example...

5a4ff40d.jpg


Sharp as you like!

I can only imagine needing f/2.8 if trying to shoot at 1/500 (or faster), whilst on ISO 100 on a dark day.

For motorsport, most of the time you'll want to pan so I'd say the f/4 is fine for motorsport. I haven't needed any faster yet.
 
well nobody could ever say the f4 isnt sharp, you could make soft images if you tried...
 
I was decided on the 2.8IS after all of the comments but now Kryptix has thorn the cat amongst the pigeons!

I have to be honest I think I will just get the 2.8IS and know that the spec is there if I need it.
Thanks chaps and thats a great shot Kryptix....

and Lensflare - don't be silly, Nikon? Pah :banana:

:canon:

Thanks chaps
 
Cheers Woodsie, but remember most people will always pick f/2.8 over f/4, but how often is it actually needed? What are you planning to take pictures of? I only really use my f/4 for motorsport, and if it's a dark day the pictures will look horrible anyway, so the f/4.0 is fine for me. Admittedly I'd swap it for a f/2.8, but is it really worth the extra money?

I guess if you can find a cheap f/2.8 and can't find a cheap f/4 then it will decide itself. But when buying new, I couldn't justify the extra £500.
 
Kryptix said:
Cheers Woodsie, but remember most people will always pick f/2.8 over f/4, but how often is it actually needed? What are you planning to take pictures of? I only really use my f/4 for motorsport, and if it's a dark day the pictures will look horrible anyway, so the f/4.0 is fine for me. Admittedly I'd swap it for a f/2.8, but is it really worth the extra money?

I guess if you can find a cheap f/2.8 and can't find a cheap f/4 then it will decide itself. But when buying new, I couldn't justify the extra £500.
Click to expand...

You have got me questioning again! :thinking: :thinking:
Back to the drawing board :wacky:
 
RichardC27 said:
2.8 for me too, if you need the extra reach you can attach the 1.4x teleconverter. I've heard the 2x converter does horrible things to the IQ.
Click to expand...

I have the 2.8 IS, and a 2x converter. The IQ loss in my opinion is very minimal.
 
I think if you're getting paid to take pictures, and you MUST get that shot then f/2.8 is a must. But if you're just taking pictures for fun... If you're anything like me, you'll see a dark shot that isn't very 'pleasing' and won't use it anyway. A f/2.8 lens would make the photo any more 'pleasing', just lighter. Would you use it anyway?

If you're local, you're welcome to have a play with my f/4 if it helps.
 
dont forget, for f4 money, yu can get a sigma or other brand 70-200 f2.8

normally non IS though.

when i was considering the same thing i went for the sigma 50-150, on the crop camera only, gives a FOV equivalent to 70-200 and is f2.8. it is also a lot lighter and will take a 1.4 converter if needed.
 
Another option might be the Sigma 70-200 F2.8?? No IS but for most of what you're wanting it for it wouldn't seem to be too much of a hardship.

Edit: great minds fletch5 :D
 
Kryptix said:
I think if you're getting paid to take pictures, and you MUST get that shot then f/2.8 is a must. But if you're just taking pictures for fun... If you're anything like me, you'll see a dark shot that isn't very 'pleasing' and won't use it anyway. A f/2.8 lens would make the photo any more 'pleasing', just lighter. Would you use it anyway?

If you're local, you're welcome to have a play with my f/4 if it helps.
Click to expand...

You know what, your right, I'm going against the majority here.
I will get the f/4 and then put the difference into more glass maybe a prime to get those shots at low aperture!
It is a hobby after all.... if I ever start to make money from photography then an upgrade would be on the cards. Until then, I think the f4 will fit the bill.

Kryptix, I owe you one, thanks for the offer!

Now it's just bloody typical that kerso sold his last f4 before :bang:

Now then, need to find a low level zoom, 24-70L?
I am only hearing good things about the 17-55IS too!
Why is this process so damn hard?!
 
I'm in the same boat. What camera you got?

My next lens will be a 24-70mm L or a 24-105mm L (also can't decide). May go with the EF-S 17-55mm as it keeps getting amazing reviews.

I really wanted a EF-S 10-22mm but I went with the Sigma 10-20mm in the end. I'm waiting for that to arrive now.

I'd love a 70-200mm f/2.8 for bragging rights, but being realistic, I doubt it'd make £100 worth of difference to me, let alone £500. :)
 
Kryptix said:
I'm in the same boat. What camera you got?

My next lens will be a 24-70mm L or a 24-105mm L (also can't decide). May go with the EF-S 17-55mm as it keeps getting amazing reviews.

I really wanted a EF-S 10-22mm but I went with the Sigma 10-20mm in the end. I'm waiting for that to arrive now.

I'd love a 70-200mm f/2.8 for bragging rights, but being realistic, I doubt it'd make £100 worth of difference to me, let alone £500. :)
Click to expand...

Got a 40D winging it's way to me :)
Will be here tomorrow, your looking at the same lenses as me lol.
It took me ages to decide upon this lens, I might make my mind up on the next one before Christmas! :clap:
I will let you know if I find any good reviews etc.
 
joxby said:
t' your spelling Bob

I dunno what all that dark photo talk is about.

ere.......200 isn't long enough for sports and aircraft.....probably..
Click to expand...

I am also planning on a 300mm f/4 L IS when the funds are available, coupled with a 1.4x that should make the 200 and the 300 good lengths for the above mentioned activities.
 
If you have the money then it has to be the f2.8.

The f2.8 can get every shot the f4 can but that can't be said the other way round.
 
Kryptix said:
I'm in the same boat. What camera you got?

My next lens will be a 24-70mm L or a 24-105mm L (also can't decide). May go with the EF-S 17-55mm as it keeps getting amazing reviews.

I really wanted a EF-S 10-22mm but I went with the Sigma 10-20mm in the end. I'm waiting for that to arrive now.

I'd love a 70-200mm f/2.8 for bragging rights, but being realistic, I doubt it'd make £100 worth of difference to me, let alone £500. :)
Click to expand...

Dunno how much you paid for your f4 IS but tbh when moving around alot the IS is a waste of money, so for the price I paid for my f2.8L I can stop up to F/4 can you stop down to f2.8?

Faster glass always helps, have used mine in dark gloomy days, indoors, for football under flood lights etc...

Well worth the extra cash if you can afford it, or just go for the 3rd party f2.8s that are nocking around Sigma really as the tamron is slow AF and noisy.
 
Lomond Lad said:
get the 2.8 Woodsie.....you know you'll only be wanting to get it later on anyway!
Click to expand...

I am pretty much decided on my kit now.

Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS
Canon 300mm f4 L IS
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (I hear great things about this)*

Canon 1.4x II Extender
A flash (haven't started here yet).




*Most likely to be changed at the moment but reviews look promising.
Surely the Canon 17-55 isn't £500 better?

Some may think I am making the wrong choice (hell even I do sometimes) but going for the cheaper version of that lets me have more choice and fill the ranges.

This decision is stupidly hard lol
 
whiteflyer said:
If you have the money then it has to be the f2.8.

The f2.8 can get every shot the f4 can but that can't be said the other way round.
Click to expand...

The one thing missing from the equation is that no lens can take a great shot if you leave it at home.

We got the f4 because the 2.8 is just too much of a lump. We already have a lump in the 100-400 and were looking for something that could be carried instead of that for walking around days.
 
I've been considering the same two lenses, what puts me off the 2.8 apart from the cost is the weight. Once mounted on a camera thats over 2kg to hold up all day long. I think I need to start doing some extra push ups :LOL:
 
There is one factor between f4 and f2.8 that nobody has pointed out at all - and it makes a heck of a difference. Whether you use Nikon (for preference!), canon or one of the independent makers........the viewfinder image from the f2.8 is much crisper than the viewfinder image of the f4.

WHY? because it lets more light in. Simple.
 
Woodsie said:
It's between the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the f/4 IS, I will be shooting all sorts such as motor sport, aircraft, maybe a bit of sports such as football and ice hockey. Eventually I would like to try my hand at some wedding photography/portrait work.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing something, Woodsie, but I don't see why you want/need IS for all this fast-moving action stuff.

Maybe one day if/when you get into weddings, the f/2.8 IS version would be necessary. But otherwise, what's wrong with the f/4 non-IS and a big pile of cash left over?
 
One point not mentioned yet is AF accuracy. Bodies will target the f/2.8 closer to optimal focus than the f/4 whatever stop you're using. Probably not a big issue for motor sport but will certainly make a difference for portraiture.

Bob
 
Hi All,

Looks like a great site you have here and a valuable resource, hope i can contribute.

Heck of a lens, I love it because of the bokeh. Only drag is the bulk and lugging it around after a while I need to get the monopod out.

The reach with the DX sensor is a real plus point.

Cheers

John

http://www.linksphotography.co.uk
 
I'm having a similar debate with myself at the moment. I want a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR which I could pick up for around £1200. I know it's a fantastic lens and one I may never have to replace. However, I am just a hobbyist, I don't make any money from my photography so justifying £1200 on a lens isn't easy. I do some portraiture for fun and I am doing a friends wedding free of charge in August so I know the f2.8 and VR will be very useful for those but I already have a 50mm f1.8 for low light indoor shots.

Following the recent price rises it's now even harder to get your hands on a Nikon version of the lens for £1,200 so I am considering getting the Sigma version which can be picked up for about half the price but doesn't have any image stabilisation. What I'm thinking is I can get the Sigma for maybe £500 plus another prime portrait lens and a 1.4x converter for when I do my sports pics and still have money left over. If I can get a second hand Sigma 70-200mm then somewhere down the line I feel like I need the upgrade to the Nikon with VR then I don't expect to lose much, if any, money on the Sigma as I can sell it on.

I had a play with the Sigma and Nikon 70-200's at Focus a few weeks back. Both indoors obviously, both at f2.8. I kept every shot taken with the Nikon with VR as they were all sharp. All the Sigma pictures were deleted as they had camera shake at the low shutter speed required.

It's meant to be the photography that's the hard part. Why is it that the shopping seems so damn impossible??? :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top