70-200 choice?

A

AliB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,762
Edit My Images
No
I have a Canon 70-200mm f4 and I'm considering upgrading to an f2.8.

There are the two Canon versions the IS and non IS. And then there are Sigmas, a few versions of their 70-200. All my current lenses are Canon but having read some reviews on the sigmas I'm tempted. (I'd also pay a visit to Calumet and try them out)

The reason for the considered upgrade is some weddings that I'm going to be assisting at and one I'm doing myself and I'm wondering if the IS is really necessary. The f4 has IS and I'm thinking that an f4 with IS might be as good as an f2.8 without IS.

Can I ask for your considered opinions on the different 70-200s out there and if it worth the investment in upgrading?
 
Canon Bob is your man for this sort of discussion - I think he's owned at least 3 out of the 4 Canon 70-200's :)

Just to throw another worm into the can, there's also the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 :D
 
Joe T said:
Can. Worms. Open! :p
Click to expand...

:LOL:

For me the best of the lot is the canon F4 version. I've never had the IS variant of the F4 though so can't comment on it.

Of the F2.8's my preference is for the sigma. I've got the canon F2.8IS and mine (it may be a bad one) doesn't match the sigma I had in terms of focus speed or performance.

Can. Worms. Stirred :p
 
And CB's here with an opinion.....one that'll be shot at by everyone who thinks that their choice is better.

The one Canon version I missed out on is the f/4 IS so I can't give a qualified opinion on that one but still have the f/4 and the f/2.8IS

Portability.....must go to either of the f/4's
Image sharpness.....real, world there's little to choose between any of them at the same settings.
Subject isolation and bokeh.....put a reasonable distance between your subject and the background and the f/2.8's produce excellent isolation wide open.

IS or not ?
If you can afford it, then go for it...gives that little extra in the way of opportunity without bumping up the ISO.

For your stated usage, I'd go (in order of preference) f/2.8IS, f/2.8, f/4IS, f/4. I'm assuming that the weight isn't going to be an issue for you.

Ive seen the Sigma 2.8 and it seems like a nice lens too.

Bob
 
I can't comment on the 70 200 cos I never used one but as far as the IS goes and this is from a novice the IS on a new lens I have just bought makes all the difference in the world to me and my shaky hands. If you are doing weddings then your obviously quite experienced, the IS will be sweet in your hands. One thing though I'm not sure if the IS needs to be switched off on the 70 200 lens if your using a tripod at the weddings.
 
I'm buying Woollybacks Canon 70-200 L F4 this week - I hope it gives me great results - you'll all soon be able to take the P when I get to post a few of the results!......:LOL:
 
I have the sigma f2.8 and it is a match for the canon in terms of sharpness, focus speeds are quick.... Not sue if they could be timed back to back against the canon as a lot depends on tv body and the conditions.

I'm quite lucky that the 5d handles high ISO so well that i've never felt that IS would have helped.
 
frank said:
novice the IS on a new lens I have just bought makes all the difference in the world to me and my shaky hands.
Click to expand...

Remember that IS becomes more and more important the higher you go in the focal ranges. If the yardstick rule is 1/focal length for the shutter speed, then it gets very difficult to keep shooting at 1/200 in low light. Also explains why there aren't any wide lenses equipped with IS.

IS on the 17-55 f/2.8 is nice, but not hugely important (which is why people are still happy with the tried and tested 24-70 f/2.8. IS on a 70-200 or higher is a very good thing.
 
Just got the canon 70-200mmf2.8IS yesterday from Kerso (very good price!!) and I absolutely love it, although not had too much time to play with it yet.
I would say go for what you can afford, the IS version will give you that little extra.
I have a selection of canon and sigma lenses and when I have bought the sigmas, a couple of months later I always wish I bought canon. I find the build quality is better on the canon IMO.
Be warned the 2.8LIS is quite heavy, although I have the 500f4, so its nothing really.
Good luck,
Mark
 
I had both the 2.8 IS and the 4 IS at the same time, and sold the 2.8, as it was too big, heavy and obtrusive for me. The f4 did a wonderful job for me at the one wedding I have done, and with some of the money I got from selling the f2.8 I got things like a battery pack to add to my 580 - It cuts recharge times to a fraction, making it so much easier to get group shots with everyone smiling and looking relaxed - you know how just after the first flash has gone, people seem to relax a little more..
The weight of my bag over the course of a long days wedding was plenty enough without the f2.8's extra bulk..
 
Thanks for the input folks! I've got a 5D and a 20D so good to know the 5D is good with the sigma.
Having read a fair few reviews the extra weight of the 2.8IS might cause me a problem. I'm only 5'3" so I might struggle on a long day with that. That's one reason I'm tempted to try out the Sigma and keep my f4 Canon IS too. Best of both worlds then.

It would appear that the Canons and Sigmas all have their respective strengths and weaknesses but it's hard to pick just one clear winner from the group. And I hadn't even thought of a Tamron!

Now who builds a top quality 70-200mm f2.8 IS that you don't need a bearer to carry it? lol.
 
A F2.8 is always going to be heavier than an equivalent F4 and IS is always going to be heavier than non-IS.

Its not that bad, I used a 70-200 F2.8 on my 30D with battery grips for a good 5 hours the other day non-stop. My only tip is to hang the strap over your shoulder when not using the camera to avoid it just dangling round your neck and doing your back....

I'll give you it is heavy, compared to the 300F4 IS I was using in the morning, but the results speak for themselves.
 
We have 3 of the 4 70-200 versions at LensesForHire.co.uk - the f/4 IS, the f/2.8 and the f/2.8 IS. I've used all of them, though probably not as extensively as Canon Bob.

In terms of image quality and sharpness, there's nothing in it. They're all great.

The f/2.8 versions do produce nice bokeh when they're wide open.

But the single biggest factor in my opinion is the weight. The f/2.8 versions are *much* heavier than the f/4. I'm not at all sure I'd want to carry that around all day.

My suggestion for weddings: f/2.8 IS if you really really want to shoot at f/2.8 for the bokeh and are prepared to lug it around. But f/4 IS otherwise.
 
I have a 24-105 IS, and the IS is a life saver. I sold my 70-200 f4 non IS because my hands are shaky and I never get a decent handheld shot with it. Im hoping to get the 2.8 IS some time.
If you can afford the 70-200 2.8 IS, then go for it. The only downside to it is weight in my opinion.
 
Well, I've made a decision!

I've decided to try the Sigma and just bagged me one of these on fleabay.
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG APO HSM EX

I thought I'd give it a go because it was the most cost effective way of trying a 2.8. I'll keep the f4 in the meantime too. If I really like the f2.8 over the f4? Well I can always sell them both and buy the Canon f2.8!

Thanks folks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top