70-200 F4 L...upgrade to?

kennysarmy

kennysarmy

Yeah but can your army do this?
Messages
7,312
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
The ULTIMATE Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is out of my price range...

But when I can sell my 70-200 F4 L USM I could afford either the:
Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L USM
OR
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

I do occasionaly take some sports stuff but primarily the lens would be used for candid portraits and some landscape stuff.

Which would be better for me?

As I understand it the F2.8 is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the F4 versions.....presumably NOT so much bigger it would look a bit silly on my 400d?

I was thinking of upgrading my camera (400d) to the 40d...but the best glass possible may be a better use of my monies.....

Look forward to some useful comments/posts....
If anyone has any of the lens/combinations I am thinking of perhaps they could post some example candid shots...

Cheers.
 
Are your portraits indoors/under good light? I would think that IS would be of less benefit than the 2.8 (landscapes you will be tripoding anyway?) if you have good enough light, and go for shallow depth of field.
 
Personally I found the 70-200mm F2.8 alot bigger and heavier than my 70-200mmf4 and found I wasn't using it as much so I sold it and went back to the f4:)

I think if I'd of had a true need for the 2.8 then I would have kept it and been happy but I decided to get some money back.....and space in my bag!!

For most portrait and landscape work I don't think you would notice much difference in quality.

I'm sure someone else may have other thoughts though...
 
coldpenguin said:
Are your portraits indoors/under good light? I would think that IS would be of less benefit than the 2.8 (landscapes you will be tripoding anyway?) if you have good enough light, and go for shallow depth of field.
Click to expand...

portraits are usually outside...but often on dull overcast days (this IS England) so I find myself bumping the ISO up to 400 or 800 to get a high enough shutter speed to prevent camera shake.....and I find fixing noisy photos with software can soften the image...
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
personally I'd go for the 2.8 - 4f with IS won't freeze motion regardless of how steady you are
Click to expand...

..for sport perhaps....

..but for candids of the kids etc...

I was taking some of an outdoor "party" today and there was a sax player...he was nt exactly jumping about lol...is this the sort of scenario where IS would have helped me keep the ISO low....?
 
DLS_Creations said:
Personally I found the 70-200mm F2.8 alot bigger and heavier than my 70-200mmf4 and found I wasn't using it as much so I sold it and went back to the f4:)
Click to expand...

That's what worries me.....if it's THE lens I need then I guess I'd have to get used to the size/weight....but it's no good if I don't want to lug it around....
 
Everyone is good when it comes to advice on spending money aren't they!:lol:

The 200mm F2.8 is pretty much the same size/weight as the 70-200mm f4....not much use for taking pics of kids moving about really though is it?

I can't really think of any other lenses in that focal range...not sure if the Sigma or Tamron variants are any lighter?
 
since weight is an issue, have you looked at the sigma 50-150. crop only, f2.8 through the range and a damn sight smaller than the 70-200 f2.8s. said to be as sharp as the sigma 70-200 which is compared favourably with the canon
 
I've got the f/4 version and would upgrade to the f/2.8 to give me more speed without raising the ISO and also the shallower depth of field for portraits.
 
kennysarmy said:
if it's THE lens I need then I guess I'd have to get used to the size/weight
Click to expand...

I've started using mine with earnest lately, having had it sat in the bag for several months unused because it 'stands out like a sore thumb' and makes me feel a little self conscious.

Yes, it's a heavy(ish) b****r, and I find it a bit much if it's sat in my Crumpler Daily and over my shoulder for any length of time whilst hiking along. But if you are at an event or something and using it, I think it's fine. It doesn't feel at all heavy and I reckon I could shoot with the thing all day if the need arose.

Probably my fave lens at the minute!
 
I bought the 70-200 4 IS simply because the admittedly wonderful f/2.8 lens is so heavy. It is more than twice the weight :eek:
 
I'd personally get the f2.8 version.

The F4 IS is a pointless upgrade, as you could learn better tecnhnique, buy a monopod which would give the same results for a hell of a lower cost.

The DoF difference between the f4 and f2,8 can be quite substantial, i know that i'd LOVE the f2.8 version over my f4 version any day of the week.
 
For what you shoot I'd perhaps sell the 400D, 50mm and Tammy and try to find a nice SH 5D and maybe a 35mm 2.0 (or keep the 50mm). Great walkies combo, works superb with the 70-200 and 1.4x and downstream you can pick up a SH 17-40mm. Just gives you a top quality basis to move forward and achieve top notch IQ.

On the 70-200mm options I would only ever buy the IS L 4.0. The 2.8's are not quite as good and are big and heavy, ***' great for pro's with specific needs. The non-IS is sweet but IS adds that 20% that takes it into the 'best zoom you can buy' category. With a FF you get some of the DOF of a 2.8 anyway and the better ISO performance of a 5D means you will be less dependant on bigger aperture. It's a thought!
 
kennysarmy said:
ALSO?

haha...if only I could do both...
Click to expand...

TBH I agree with him. In your situation I'd hang on to the F4 you have for a while longer and spend the money on upgrading the body.
 
condyk said:
For what you shoot I'd perhaps sell the 400D, 50mm and Tammy and try to find a nice SH 5D and maybe a 35mm 2.0 (or keep the 50mm). Great walkies combo, works superb with the 70-200 and 1.4x and downstream you can pick up a SH 17-40mm. Just gives you a top quality basis to move forward and achieve top notch IQ.

On the 70-200mm options I would only ever buy the IS L 4.0. The 2.8's are not quite as good and are big and heavy, ***' great for pro's with specific needs. The non-IS is sweet but IS adds that 20% that takes it into the 'best zoom you can buy' category. With a FF you get some of the DOF of a 2.8 anyway and the better ISO performance of a 5D means you will be less dependant on bigger aperture. It's a thought!
Click to expand...

^^^ Good points :thumbs:

I think the modern way of handling low light is with a good high ISO full frame sensor, and IS, rather than aperture. That would probably point most wedding photographers in the direction of full frame, if they are not using it already on grounds of quality.

Full frame will give you an ISO advantage of maybe two stops over crop (camera dependent) and people forget that you also get over a stop less depth of field on FF compared to crop.

If the light is still too low, then it's probably time for flash. Or break out the primes - f/1.4 is two stops lower than f/2.8, and depth of field is mega thin.

When you consider all that, the one stop advantage of the f/2.8 lens seems almost irrelevant, but the weight - more than double the f/4 IS version - is a constant pain.
 
pearce_jj said:
how about complimenting your existing F4L with a 135mm F2?
Click to expand...

Interesting idea..will look in to that....

HoppyUK said:
I bought the 70-200 4 IS simply because the admittedly wonderful f/2.8 lens is so heavy. It is more than twice the weight :eek:
Click to expand...

When out and about with the family for me this is a major consideration...I am not a pro togger...just a happy amateur trying to get the best photos for my buck...

Ant said:
I'd personally get the f2.8 version.

The F4 IS is a pointless upgrade, as you could learn better tecnhnique, buy a monopod which would give the same results for a hell of a lower cost.

The DoF difference between the f4 and f2,8 can be quite substantial, i know that i'd LOVE the f2.8 version over my f4 version any day of the week.
Click to expand...

I do own a monopod, but would feel a prat using it in situations when just out with the family....I understand your point though...

So many differences of opinion...

1. Upgrade your camera.
2. Go 2.8
3. 4 with IS
4. Sell everything and get a used 5d.
5. 135 f2

1. This is on the agenda at some point, but I would like to get my glass sorted first.
2. Just think the weight would p*ss me off when just out and about on day trips.
3. The one to consider most I think
4. Just wonder if I would miss the reach of a crop body....I don't print that many images big size...only the odd good one of the kids....most are just printed 4x6 or 7x5 so I think the 5d might be overkill at the moment..
5. Interesting idea....will do some research on this lens...
 
Ant said:
The F4 IS is a pointless upgrade, as you could learn better tecnhnique, buy a monopod which would give the same results for a hell of a lower cost.
Click to expand...
It's far from pointless. The IS is a very useful tool when a monopod or tripod isn't viable. The IS version is also a superior lens optically and the sharpest of the lot, including the F2.8.
 
the f2.8 non IS (1.3kg) is almost twice the weight of the f4
 
Since this seems to be a lot about weight, here are the numbers, and prices for comparison are all from Warehouse Express:

70-200L 4 IS, 760g, £970.
70-200L 4 non-IS, 705g, £550.
70-200L 2.8 IS, 1570g, £1550.
70-200L 2.8 non-IS, 1310g, £1050.
70-300 4-5.6 IS, 630g, £425.
55-250 EFS 4-5.6 IS, 390g, £220.

The IS versions of the 70-200 have more glass lens elements in them, hence the extra weight. And FWIW, I bet that if you took two pictures, both at f/8, with the humble 55-250 and then with an L lens, you would struggle to tell them apart ;)
 
As an aside, I have the 70-200 f4 non IS, upgraded from a 400dto a 40d and found it much better balanced on there for me, in fact the 40d just felt much better for me purely from a handling point of view and was worth it almost for that alone. Not tried it, and each to their own as such, but the 70-200 f2.8 might be a bit strange on the 400d.

ISO handling is much better as well on the 40d.
 
You want "strange" balance? Mate of mine has a Canon 300mm f/2.8 on a 450d! :)
 
Vertigo1 said:
It's far from pointless. The IS is a very useful tool when a monopod or tripod isn't viable. The IS version is also a superior lens optically and the sharpest of the lot, including the F2.8.
Click to expand...

I'd agree there. If I'm taking scaffolding (1 leg or 3) I'll take the 100-400 L, if I'm handheld I take the 70-200 f4 L IS. Recently taken possession of a 1.4x converter but having not used it much yet I wouldn't dream of adding a further complication to your debate:lol:
 
I am also looking at these 2 lenses, and i am going for the 2.8 over the F4 IS.
The IS on the 55-250 was useless for me as i always wanted high shutter speeds.
With the 2.8 i will be able to get faster shutter speeds without having to up my ISO.
I have become a little spoilt recently by using fast primes, and have now decided that i will never buy a lens slower than 2.8 unless its a wide angle (where speed is not needed) or a telephoto prime in the 300mm range and above where the 2.8 lenses go into silly money (which i can't afford).

Since you say you are mainly going to use it for portraits and landscapes i would probably go for the F4 IS, as by all accounts its an excellent lens and will fit your needs.
But remember the 2.8 will blur the backgrounds out alot more with its wider aparture and give faster shutter speeds to freeze action in sport so its not an easy choice.

I'm no expert so take my thoughts on the matter with a pinch of salt, but i know what one i will be ordering. :)
 
I'm not convinced that F4 is suitable for indoor, let alone low light. Today I was using the 5D and 85mm F1.8 in a (fairly bright) sports hall, but even at ISO 1600 - quality does suffer there - was struggling to keep the shutter high enough for the moving children targets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top