Canon 70-200 choice

Bythesea

Bythesea

Messages
1,133
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
I think I have already decided which one I want but would like some opinions to make sure. I am choosing between the Canon 70-200L f4 IS and f2.8 non IS. Most of my photography is done with a tripod so the IS would be turned off then anyway, and I am not into sports pics, though wildlife is something I might do in the future.

Is the 2.8 a better lens than the 4.0 (other than the extra stop)? Price is fairly even between the two, and I can't stretch to the f2.8 IS mkII which I think is probably the best of the group.
 
other than the extra stop there isn't much between them

If you shoot mostly on a tripod then the extra stop will be more valuable to you than the IS or the lighter weight of the f/4

sounds like you've already made up your mind :thumbs:
 
I have the f2.8 IS Mkl and all I can tell you its a cracking lens.

If I were in your shoes, I would go with the f2.8 non IS

Ian
 
Last edited:
You seem to be comparing these two lenses because they are priced similarly but if you are happy with no IS then the f4 non IS may be a better bet. It is light, sharp and cheaper than the other 2 you mention.

I have the f4 non IS and I will upgrade to one of the 2.8 IS models in the future.

Neil
 
If you want a bargin check your local currys stores as the F4 IS is only £751, I bought one on saturday at 20% off. If you find its not what you need you can sell it for what you paid for it. Not available on the web though only the shops.
Oh and it ends wednesday.
 
I had exactly the same question a few weeks ago (see this thread for more answers)

I ended up buying the 70-200 f/4 IS and it is superb. Glad I made that decision.
 
Cheers guys, some things for me to think about. The other advantage of the 2.8 is that it is the same filter size as my 17-40, and the Sigma 50 1.4 I want, though I will definitely call at Currys on the way home tomorrow to have a look.
 
Thanks for that link Steve - very interesting. I have a 5D mk2 so will definitely look at the f4 IS. Might be changing my mind, particularly with the Currys offer.
 
Bythesea said:
I think I have already decided which one I want but would like some opinions to make sure. I am choosing between the Canon 70-200L f4 IS and f2.8 non IS. Most of my photography is done with a tripod so the IS would be turned off then anyway, and I am not into sports pics, though wildlife is something I might do in the future.

Is the 2.8 a better lens than the 4.0 (other than the extra stop)? Price is fairly even between the two, and I can't stretch to the f2.8 IS mkII which I think is probably the best of the group.
Click to expand...

Well if the price is fairly even between them, go for the 2.8. I have this lens, (70-200 f:2.8 L (non-IS). This is one of the sharpest lenses I own, and indeed sharper than the IS version 1 of these... It's an awesome lens...
 
Depends what you want - check out sites like photozone.de, I think you will find that IQ wise the F4IS is very hard to beat (IQ is better on F4 IS)- unless you go and spend millions on the 70-200 2.8 IS II!

If you need the speed then go with the 2.8 - you have to put up with the heavy bulky lens though!
 
I haven't used the non is 2.8 but have used the f4 and f2.8 mk1 is, if I had the choice the 2.8 wins hands down. It is just an absolutely stunning lens!
 
Thanks for all the comments - thought I had decided but still not quite sure. And I have been looking at the 200 f2.8 recently :)
 
i would go for the F4 lens. im in the same situation and decided that the F4 is the way to go. why?

because its lighter and has IS and i will use ti mainly for outdoor shooting.

for indoors i will save up and get a 135L or the 85mm instead. after all, the F4 na F2.8 is only one stop difference?

i tried the mk2 f2.8 IS lens and its a cracking lens but heavy though so you would probably need IS for that lens mate as i can imagine it being difficult shooting with that without any camera movement for long periods.

Also, my lowepro 350 bag may not be able to fit that lens in!
 
The IS version of the Canon 70-200's are weather sealed, the non-IS versions aren't, if that adds anything to the mix. I had the f4 non IS and it's light and sharp, I now have the f2.8 IS and it weighs a ton but it's magnificent...

Steve
 
I Was in the same boat as you and got the f4 Is just couldn’t justify paying all that money for a stop faster
 
Thanks again chaps. It will be mainly on a tripod, so the IS isn't so essential, and I do have a waterproof cover for another lens I have and don't use it it the rain very much anyway. Know what you mean about the weight though - twice as much. And the price between the f4 IS and f2.8 non IS isn't so great, though I did just say IS wasn't important... :thinking:
 
Bythesea said:
Thanks again chaps. It will be mainly on a tripod, so the IS isn't so essential, and I do have a waterproof cover for another lens I have and don't use it it the rain very much anyway. Know what you mean about the weight though - twice as much. And the price between the f4 IS and f2.8 non IS isn't so great, though I did just say IS wasn't important... :thinking:
Click to expand...

Even in daylight shooting right at 200mm. Is can be a godsend. Not easy hand holding at that range with a slowish shutter speed.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Even in daylight shooting right at 200mm. Is can be a godsend. Not easy hand holding at that range with a slowish shutter speed.
Click to expand...

of course shooting @ 70mm will be so much easier , wont it ..........
 
Well after changing my mind at least five times since the start of this thread, I have just ordered the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS. Somehow managed to order a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 at the same time - not quite sure how that happened. Might have to sneak that one into the camera bag!
 
Bythesea said:
Well after changing my mind at least five times since the start of this thread, I have just ordered the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS. Somehow managed to order a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 at the same time - not quite sure how that happened. Might have to sneak that one into the camera bag!
Click to expand...

Good luck mate, that lens is twice the weight and imo. you need IS for these sorts of lenses ESPECIALLY the f2.8 version.

it aint easy hand holding 1.3kg of a lens steadily :(.

Dispite that, you will like the lens
 
jonneymendoza said:
Good luck mate, that lens is twice the weight and imo. you need IS for these sorts of lenses ESPECIALLY the f2.8 version.

it aint easy hand holding 1.3kg of a lens steadily :(.

Dispite that, you will like the lens
Click to expand...

It is a heavy lens, but with a decent technique it's easy enough to handhold. I find it easier to hold on a gripped body.

It's a cracking lens though and an excellent choice! Have fun with it!
 
I've never found it a problem to handhold, but as the OP states most of the work will be tripod based that won't be an issue anyway. The F2.8 version also has the tripod collar included (I know non IS f4 hasn't, not sure about IS version) which is useful for that kind of work.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Good luck mate, that lens is twice the weight and imo. you need IS for these sorts of lenses ESPECIALLY the f2.8 version.

it aint easy hand holding 1.3kg of a lens steadily :(.

Dispite that, you will like the lens
Click to expand...

I did consider the weight - but as around 95% of my photography is on a tripod I think I'll be ok, and I am looking forward to seeing the results of both lenses :)
 
Since the 2.8ISmkII came out the Mki2.8 are readily available on the used market and it's perfect 10. Okay it's 9.9 or the 2.8 MkII is an 11, not sure :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top