Canon 70-200 but which one.

Paul Holtom

Paul Holtom

Messages
1,251
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Intend to but a Canon 70-200 in the next few weeks but cannot make my mind up on which one to get. The f2.8 non IS looks tempting as its nice and fast plus bonus of 77mm filters which is the same as my 24-105 and 10-22 but weights loads. Then again for about the same money th f4 IS version, nice and light but 67mm filters.

What did other people decide on and why?
 
It all depends on what you intend using the lens for. If sport is your bag then IS will not be of much value to you, but f2.8 will. On the other hand if you plan on some low light work then the IS may be of much more use than 2.8 even though you restricted to f4. Ideally f2.8 and IS would be the way to go (although at a high price tag).
Alan
 
I went for the 70 - 200 F4 as my first piece of L glass, I know its not got the bells and whistles of IS.....but its razor sharp and not too weighty. (y)

I will be upgrading next year though to the 2.8 IS, as I retire and can afford it then....lol :LOL:
 
Ive just gone from the f4 non is to the 2.8 non is, the f4 was razor sharp and i loved it but i wanted the faster version. the extra weight of the 2.8 helps you hold it steady. i always wanted the IS version but after playing with the non-is i very much doubt i'll be getting one for a long time.
 
I'm stuck in a similar quandry, I've decided to hold out for the 2.8 IS as even if I don't need it now, it could be handy later!
 
I recently bought the 70-200 4 L IS. I think IS is brilliant, and f/2.8 is nice but I'd rather increase the ISO for low light as I find the shallow DoF more of a liability a lot of the time and the 2.8 lens weighs a ton.
 
The F/4 lenses (both IS and non-IS) are sharper than the F/2.8's throughout the zoom range at the same F-stop. They are also lighter and easier to handle.

AF is the 2.8's (I have only tried the IS version) seems a little faster, and DOF is obviousely much tighter wide open.

It is a tough call between the F/4 IS and F/2.8 non-IS. After a lot of thought I went for the F/4 IS because I shoot mainly outdoors in good light, and static people or objects. For Wedding's or in-door sports the F/2.8 would be better.

The F/2.8 IS would have been the perfect lens, but price is too much unless you use it for a living.
 
I use the 2.8 IS for weddings, wildlife and landscapes. It takes 77mm filters and image quaility is awesome, even wide open. If you can afford it, go for this one.
 
I got the f4 IS from someone off here and it's an excellent, pin sharp lens. I've also had a bit of experience using the 2.8 IS version and that is fantastic but also a lot, lot heavier. In terms of image quality I doubt there is any difference at all and none as far as I can see from my efforts. I suppose it will come down to what you can afford and in my situation the f4 was much better value for money
 
Buy the best that you can afford. The f4 versions make better traveling companions as they're much lighter.

I too, would recommend the 2.8 IS version but it's not a cheap lens.
 
The only reason to buy a non-IS lens is price.

The difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is one stop. In terms of exposure that's the same as running ISO800 instead of ISO400, which is not a huge amount but has its downsides. Plus you get quite a lot less depth of field at f/2.8, which can be a good thing or a bad thing.

With IS you get three stops benefit with the f/2.8 lens, and four stops with the f/4 version.

The f/2.8 lens is twice the weight, and much more expensive.
 
My 2p
I have had 2 of the F4 versions and it is with out doubt a Lovely peice of Glass... however for Low Light situations indoors etc its useless F4 just does not cut it for Low Light scenarios

Out side its great for a whole Gamut of subjects.. but I got tired of it every time I wanted to use it indoors I had to use the flash

so I sold it and got the F2.8IS version and that problem no longer exists
as to sharpness I would say outside a Laboratary its impossible to tell them apart
big difference in price but I wont be going back to the F4 version anytime soon
Chris
 
I have the 70-200 f4 L version but have been asked to do a wedding next year. Do I increase the iso to 200 and keep the F4 (would image quality suffer on prints on 5D mk1 for wedding images), or get a f2.8 that weighs quite heavy (as would have two bodies plus 17-40L f4 on 50D to cart around). This is a related question to this initial thread but may assist in the decision process for others.
 
ive just had some stuff printed today, I used a 40D and the 70-200 2.8 IS and my ISO has been upto 800-1000. I couldnt find the image quality being affected at all. I printed some at 20x18.

However for wedding photography and the 70-200 lens, I would say its best use comes from FF bodies. On the 1.6x cropped bodies I find the lens too tight at 70mm (essentially its 112mm) for portraiture or group shots.
 
I opted for the f/4 IS... then regretted thinking I needed the f/2.8 IS... then realised I didn't. Ok so you get the extra stop, but it's not as sharp (minor difference but still there), the f/2.8 in my experience didn't handle TC's well. It's a chunky bit of glass too. the 70-200 is a really usable range and often find that when walking about the 70-200 range is about right for most things (not so much on the 1.6x but still handy). If you're walking about with the f/2.8 you know about it very very quickly. the f/4 is positively much lighter and easy to handle when out and about.

The f/4 IS is certainly staying.
 
Interesting that high iso didn't affect image quality using 70-200. Must try on full frame in darker rooms and see if any noise creeps in and how effective noise filtering is. May just use my 70-200 L f4 on fullframe & 17-40L on cropped 1.6x and backup sigma 24-70 F2.8ex dg for cropped. Save me hundreds of £££s but would be nice to have the IS L though
 
I've decided to plump for the 70-200 non IS, I figured it will suffice till I can afford the 2.8 IS and it will hold its value well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top