70-200 range lens for Canon

John wells

John wells

Messages
1,006
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening all

Im looking to get one of the above, my initial thoughts were the L f4, ideally the IS version but will rarely be handheld so not sure what advantage i would see, what I'm not sure is whether there are bargains to be had with the sigma/tamron f2's???

thoughts would be appreciated, i reckon i can stretch my budget to £450-500

John
 
I have had the F4, and I would say the basic L one is the best; I don’t notice the IS, although maybe thats just because I use higher ISO and the like, but I would save and get the non is. There are certainly a good value option, I’d say! Other one to think about might be the 200mm 2.8 (fixed lens) which is a cracker - much smaller but maybe it would suit you. As said above, what is it that you’re looking to phtoogrpha in particular?
 
Canon 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 L's, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 are all excellent lenses, you can't go wrong with any of them.
 
Hi all, mainly landscapes but wondering about the is for occasional handheld portraits etc, will admittedly be infrequent
 
odd jim said:
Canon 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 L's, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 are all excellent lenses, you can't go wrong with any of them.
Click to expand...

Hi Jim

The sigmas don't appear to have OS so I suspect they and the tamrons might be older versions
 
John wells said:
How are they at max app and max length, still sharp on ff?
Click to expand...

Mine is very good (mine doesn't have OS either, it's the last gen mk2 HSM 'macro' variant)
 
This was my concern with it, I suspect it's better than their 70-300 range which have been sent when I have tried them
 
John wells said:
This was my concern with it, I suspect it's better than their 70-300 range which have been sent when I have tried them
Click to expand...

Oh, much much better, even the first generation lenses. Remember the 70-200 are their EX lenses, their equivalent of (at the time) L lenses. The Sigma 70-300 was more akin to the Canon 75-300, utter balls!
 
Last edited:
John wells said:
Hi all, mainly landscapes but wondering about the is for occasional handheld portraits etc, will admittedly be infrequent
Click to expand...

If this is what you'll use it for, a tripod will likely be in the mix for landscape and you'll probably be focusing to infinity anyway, so no need for the 2.8 for DOF or the IS for Stability.
If you are shooting portraits, for the rarity you said you'd do it, I'd just bump up the ISO and save a pretty penny.
 
Ashburner said:
If this is what you'll use it for, a tripod will likely be in the mix for landscape and you'll probably be focusing to infinity anyway, so no need for the 2.8 for DOF or the IS for Stability.
If you are shooting portraits, for the rarity you said you'd do it, I'd just bump up the ISO and save a pretty penny.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't need to bump up the ISO for a portrait, you don't really need fast shutter speeds, and I hardly ever use a tripod for landscapes, even with non IS lenses :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top