70-200 alternative

Viper

Viper

Messages
1,457
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys!

I have been looking at getting a 70-200 F4 IS recently, however i cannot justify spending circa £800+ at the moment.

What are the alternatives to this lens. Obviously i want to retain IQ, and preferably it should have IS, as im used to shooting with IS from my previous body (GX-10).

I would be using it mainly for motorsport and aviation photography.

Cheers!
 
You know what I would recommend:lol: but a few people cant get on with it but I love mine ...... but no IS
 
Viper said:
the IS one is still around 7-800

i was hoping for one for about 5-600 if possible?
Click to expand...

Would f4 be fast enough for what you want? Oh and is IS all that useful for motorsport and planes, I got the impression that motorsport involved a lot of panning on monopods?
 
trapper501 said:
Would f4 be fast enough for what you want? Oh and is IS all that useful for motorsport and planes, I got the impression that motorsport involved a lot of panning on monopods?
Click to expand...

Which is why IS is very useful in low light.

The 2.8 has 2 IS modes - one designed for panning . Not sure if the f4 has Mode2 IS?
 
EOS_JD said:
Not sure if the f4 has Mode2 IS?
Click to expand...
Yes it does.

To the OP: you seem to want all the functionality and performance of the 70-200mm f/4 L IS. So there isn't an alternative, end of.
 
Canon 70-300 IS USM?
~£300 second hand, and they seem to hold their value pretty well so you could sell it on pretty easily once you've got the rest of the cash.
IQ is rated as being very good, a "hidden L lens" as one review put it.
It is a stop slower at the long end though.
 
Yup, Canon 70-300 IS and keep it below 210mm and you'll be pretty much close to the 70-200 f4IS.

Above 210mm it falls away, but still a pretty useful lens as its light and relatively small.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
A secondhand one?
Click to expand...
Still costly. My f/4 IS went up to £650 on eBay with a day left and 250 watchers before I withdrew it as I decided to spend money on studio gear rather than f/2.8 IS (I'll get that at a later date).
 
I would consider a 2nd hand 100-400 also if you're after aviation. 200mm prob ok for motorsport, at Thruxton I found myself around 150-200 most of the time but I suppose it depends on the track.

A converter with the 70-200 f4 will also loose you some more light. If cost really is an issue then I think the 70-300 as above will probably be a better option anyway.

Personally I had the same dilema and I wanted a lens for motorsport, aviation and wildlife. I bought a 70-200 F4L (non is) and found it was too short and I was at 200mm all of the time. I then bought a 100-400 a couple of months later and now I've got a buyer for the 70-200 because it's never out of the bag. By the time you've bought a 70-200 and then a converter you may as well have gone for the 100-400.

If you have the money but are struggling to justify it you'll just have to decide what you need and how often you will use it.
 
I have the 70-300mm IS and the sigma 50-150mm f2.8 non IS and rate them both for 'budget' use.
however, the sigma wouldn't be long enough for motorsport and aviation even cropped
I use it for gigs, events and similar
 
I'm thinking 70-300 IS and 70-200 f/4 non IS for my telezoom as well. From most reviews, looks like 70-200 is sharper? But 70-300 would be more versatile and IS would be nice. Not sure how 70-300 performs on a full frame though. Anyone has a sample picture taken by FF + 70-300?
 
I told you tom just get a non IS 70-200 if you are worried about £££££.

I find I switch IS off alot, and at faster shutter speeds (motorsport/sport) etc... the chances of camera shake are alot lower.

Or stop being a gyppo :D

100-400 is a good option again but you wont get one cheap and the push pull system isnt to everyones liking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top