70-200 4L IS, my thoughts of it agianst 2.8 IS

[mrk]

http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/photos/gear_cam/70-200_f4_L-IS-USM.jpg

I had the 2.8 IS before and sold it to get the F4 as I was unhappy with the sharpness below F4 and I can save a few £££ selling it plus benefitting from the 4stop IS on the F4 as well as increase sharpness and better flare control.

Well it came today (Thanks Kerso) at a good price of £607 before cashback and must say it's certainly slimmer than the 2.8, looks like a rifle barrel instead of a cannon now!

Results are super, sharpness is much better at f4 at both ends compared to the 2.8IS and the lighter weight is excellent for the bag.

Pics @ F4, Exif present on all:

200mm 100%
http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/photos/gear_cam/70-200_f4_L-IS-USM_200mm.jpg

70mm 100%
http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/photos/gear_cam/70-200_f4_L-IS-USM_70mm.jpg

iso640 indoor sample 100% (4MB)
http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/photos/gear_cam/70-200_f4_L-IS-USM_sample1.jpg
(af point was zoom ring area)

I won't be missing the 2.8 much as it's mainly used outdoors where shutter speed are well above 1/200sec anyway and on the 40D high isos can be used freely so if it did come to it I can just bung on one of those.

Very happy 4L owner here

 

[dod]

Interesting Robbie, it's something I've been thinking about doing too. The F2.8IS isn't all it's cracked up to be for me.

 

[mrk]

Is your one quite soft? the only things that put me off mainly was the softness and the flaring below f4, if those two were as awesome as the price would otherwise suggest then I could adapt to the weight and maybe get a workout too

 

[Jimmy_Lemon]

I am more than happy with my F4 IS 2.8 was waaaay outside my budget so went for the F4 IS and it is just so sharp and excellent I want to use it for all shots, but obviously cant I even seems to out perform my 17-40 L

 

[fraggle101]

Im thinking about getting the 70-200 so was wondering if you stopped the 2.8 down to F4 how would it compare??

 

[dod]

Is your one quite soft? the only things that put me off mainly was the softness and the flaring below f4, if those two were as awesome as the price would otherwise suggest then I could adapt to the weight and maybe get a workout too

It's the focussing performance for me. Sharpness when it nails it is good. The problem is that it just doesn't nail it often enough, even with the IS switched off. My keeper rate has gone way down since I got it. I know there are plenty who love the F2.8 but I can't say I'm one of them.

Having said that I just got a MkIII so I'm going to try it on that body and hope it's going to improve things

 

[spencer]

I have the 70-200 2.8 (non Is version) & love it to bits!!

Spence

 

[atp_image]

Im awaiting delivery of my new 70-200 F4 non IS. I hope it delivers results

 

[AndyB]

does anyone has experience with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 as a comparison? I'm looking at something like these for my next lens but I dont want the Canon with IS if it's not worth the additional dosh

 

[petemc]

Eugh, sharpness debates I bought the f/2.8 lens for 1 reason. Its f/2.8. Its very rare that I stop it down to f/4. If I want a sharper lens, not just a bit sharper at 100% but an actual sharper lens I'd go prime. Theres no way I'd ever call my f/2.8 soft.

 

[dod]

Eugh, sharpness debates I bought the f/2.8 lens for 1 reason. Its f/2.8. Its very rare that I stop it down to f/4. If I want a sharper lens, not just a bit sharper at 100% but an actual sharper lens I'd go prime. Theres no way I'd ever call my f/2.8 soft.

I wouldn't especially say they're soft either Pete although it's certainly no better than the Sigma or F4. I just find it slower than I'd like.

does anyone has experience with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 as a comparison?

There have been quite a few threads on here lately about them, here's the search results

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/search.php?searchid=736641

 

[petemc]

I wouldn't especially say they're soft either Pete although it's certainly no better than the Sigma or F4. I just find it slower than I'd like.

Its understandable for you as you do motorsports so you need quick focusing. Thats not to say events I've covered don't have fast moving people, but I've never really felt I needed something quicker. It might not be any sharper than the Sigma or the f4 but it has IS which the Sigma doesn't and f/2.8 which the f/4 doesn't. For me its a no brainer. Has the features I want. Has a level of sharpness that is very good imho.

 

[dod]

The reaon I kept it rather than the Sigma or F4 was simply the weather sealing. Neither of them have it either. With the F4IS however that makes it an option worth considering for me again. F2.8 doesn't normally give me enough DOF so I rarely use it.

 

[AliB]

does anyone has experience with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 as a comparison? I'm looking at something like these for my next lens but I dont want the Canon with IS if it's not worth the additional dosh

Yep, I've just bought a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and I already have the Canon 70-200 f4 IS. I wanted the 2.8 for a wedding in two weeks.

I'm hoping to get them both on a tripod at some time this weekend and I can have a better look at them side by side. So far I've tried a quick few shots with the Sigma indoors and I really like it!

I'll try to post the results by the ned of the weekend.

 

[AndyB]

This is one thing I hate about being a photographer - too many choices and a wish list that gets longer each time you but something new!

 

[petemc]

Pfft I'm perfectly happy with my setup.

 

[AndyB]

Then I envy you Pete. I don't think I will ever get to that point. That's not to say I am not happy with what I have got - but just that there is always something else I want to try

 

[petemc]

Oh yeah, plenty I want to try. A Leica + f/1 lens. A 5D, a D3, etc. Plenty I could throw money at if I had it. However I'm aware of what I can do with my kit, and thats a lot so I'm happy. Right now if I fail to get a shot it will be because of me not because I lack the gear.

 

[8utters]

Yeah same here actually pete, i'm perfectly happy with my current kit, I have a great range of lenses (ultra wide with a 17-40, medium prime with a 50mm and telephoto with my 70-200).

I have no intention of adding anything else to my kit anytime soon (can't afford to anyway). The next thing i'l probably buy is a 5D MKII but that won't be for a while.

 

[Canon Bob]

does anyone has experience with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 as a comparison? I'm looking at something like these for my next lens but I dont want the Canon with IS if it's not worth the additional dosh

Try raising Kelack for an opinion.....she's borrowed my Canon 2.8 IS whilst her Sigma is getting an MOT.

Bob

 

[Col_M]

I've been debating on whether to get the f/4 IS to replace my sigma, not that there is anything wrong with the sigma but I rarely use it wide open, I don't usually shoot much action and the weight saving would be nice too.
Tough choice though

 

[dazzajl]

Pfft I'm perfectly happy with my setup.

OMG!! Me and Pete in total agreement about something. I'm off for a lie down.

Asking which is the best 70-200 to stick on your canon is like asking what's the best food.

 

[AndyB]

So what IS the best food Daz?

 

[toguko]

and what about new Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8?

 

[dazzajl]

So what IS the best food Daz?

My first thought on the most fun thing to eat was probably far too eager and not really postable.

 

[AndyB]

Lol Daz. I think the thread needs transfering to a new forum! Actuallyh I do understand what you are saying. My reason for looking at the comparisons is because I will be using the lens for live performance - bands etc. So I need the reach and also the 2.8 speed. So really what I am looking for is which performs best in terms of focus speed and sharpness. I am not really worried about IS - although it certainly works I'm not sure if the cost is worth it.