Another “Which lens should I buy?” thread .....

Messages
60
Edit My Images
No
#1
Putting price considerations aside for a moment, I have the opportunity to purchase one of the two new Canon 70-200 zooms: either the f2.8 or the f4. I really can’t decide. Please help me make a decision.

For context, I will be using it mostly for shooting arena/pitch based events such as football, equestrian and athletics. I’m currently using the excellent 70-300, but most of my shots are in the 80 to 120 range so not using the top end of the bigger lens much for this. The weight of the f2.8 is a bit off putting given I’ll be lugging the thing around for several hours at a time, (it’s heavier than the 70-300) so do I really need the extra stop, or will the f4 do me a great job for less energy output and strain on my aging back?. I use a Canon 5D mk2 and generally carry it on a Blackrapid shoulder strap rather than a conventional neck strap which helps with the weight/bad back issue.

Anyone have any experience of these two bits of kit? All advice would be very welcome. Many thanks.
 
Messages
1,675
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
Somewhat of a dilemma you might miss shots with the f4 that you would have got with the 2.8 but on the other hand the 2.8 might be so heavy that you give up taking it, that's whats happened to me with a fuji 100-400 , its too heavy to lug round so I don't take it.
Perhaps the 135mm f2 might be worth a look?
 
Messages
1,008
Name
Dave Pickett
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
I have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 that I rarely use as its so damn heavy! In theory it's nice to have the extra stop, but cameras are so much better at high ISO's these days it's far less important. Also f4 gives a bit more depth of field so it's likely you will get shots that might have missed focus on the 2.8. I'd rather have a smaller lighter lens that I actually use than a large piece of cupboard ornament. I'm looking at the Tamron 70-210 f4 about £450 on grey market.
 
Messages
111
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
I struggle with the light a I shoot mainly indoors so would have to have f2.8.

Your 70-300 is f4-f5.6? do you have any issues? If f4 is ok for you save some money and weight. The f4's are quite a bit cheaper!!
 
Messages
1,146
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
All I can add is that the 70-200 2.8 mk2 I owned was an outstanding lens.
Weight is a relative term and depends a lot on a persons wellbeing. If you are fit and healthy, a day with a 70-200 2.8 should not be a problem.

As for alternatives, there isn't much else that covers your 80-120 range. I guess a 24-104 f 4.0 might just scrape it.

By comparison to a 300mm 2.8 the 70-200 2.8 is a lightweight.
 
Messages
291
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
Depends if your well off or not lol. Get 2.8 if you have a good job and get the f4 if you don't.

I had the f4 IS and really liked it overall
 
OP
OP
W
Messages
60
Edit My Images
No
#10
I struggle with the light a I shoot mainly indoors so would have to have f2.8.

Your 70-300 is f4-f5.6? do you have any issues? If f4 is ok for you save some money and weight. The f4's are quite a bit cheaper!!
No issues at all with the 70-300 - it’s a great lens and I’ve used it loads. I just wondered if the faster apertures of the newer 70-200s might improve image quality at all. I’m generally shooting outdoors in daylight at sports events etc so no issues with light.
 
OP
OP
W
Messages
60
Edit My Images
No
#11
All I can add is that the 70-200 2.8 mk2 I owned was an outstanding lens.
Weight is a relative term and depends a lot on a persons wellbeing. If you are fit and healthy, a day with a 70-200 2.8 should not be a problem.

As for alternatives, there isn't much else that covers your 80-120 range. I guess a 24-104 f 4.0 might just scrape it.

By comparison to a 300mm 2.8 the 70-200 2.8 is a lightweight.
Lol - yes. I knew someone who had the 300 f2.8 and it was a real monster with a lens cap the size of a saucepan lid!! Not one I’d want to lug round. I have a 24-105 f4 and use it for other things, but it hasn’t quite got the reach at the top end for my application. Primes don’t have the flexibility with constantly moving subjects, when I have to be standing in one spot pretty much. Think I’ll weigh out 1480gms of something and carry it about for a while to see how it feels ...
 
Messages
1,146
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#12
Lol - yes. I knew someone who had the 300 f2.8 and it was a real monster with a lens cap the size of a saucepan lid!! Not one I’d want to lug round. I have a 24-105 f4 and use it for other things, but it hasn’t quite got the reach at the top end for my application. Primes don’t have the flexibility with constantly moving subjects, when I have to be standing in one spot pretty much. Think I’ll weigh out 1480gms of something and carry it about for a while to see how it feels ...
Well if you need 2.8, IS and 70-200mm you've kind of exhausted your options.
As I said, my one was awesome.
 
Top