Canon 70-200 f/2.8

Freester

Freester

Messages
1,602
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Thinking out loud really... I would appreciate people's thoughts.

Currently I feel I have most things covered at present with my EFS10-22, Nifty 1.8 50, and my Tamron 70-300.

My main interests are Landscape and Sports (Rugby and MTB), though I am not averse to trying other stuff. Having got used to the 10-22 and the 50 (vs the kit lens) I have got used to nice glass, am beginning to feel I notice the limitations of my Tamron, and am getting a fixation for my first 'L' glass.

I really like the Tamron and some of the shots I get from it. But on dark wintry days the f4.0-5.6 isn't enough, and in general I feel the Autofocus is slow.

I can't afford a 300mm 2.8 prime and I like the idea of the 70-200 f/2.8. OK I loose 100mm of reach but am thinking go for a 1.4 or 2.0 extender. Use this when the light is good and when the light is bad only take shots when the action gets near me.

Whaddya reckon? Am I blinded by White 'L' mist and should be considering other options, or is my thinking sound? Any difference between the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders?

Finally the big question - IS or no-IS? Do I need IS for sports?

TIA

Mark F
 
You dont need IS for sport... But the usual reccomendation is to get it anyways if you can afford.. better to ahve and not need than to need and not have :)

70-200 2.8 is a lens (sigma version) that I used for a long long time doing sports... if you cant get the 300 prime then get that.. or a sigma 120-300 :)
 
Is there big differenece between sigma 70-200 2.8 and canon 70-200 2.8 ?
 
I've read 70-200 F2.8 IS has faster AF speed than the non-is F2.8 because canon updated it for the later released model.


bastic said:
Is there big differenece between sigma 70-200 2.8 and canon 70-200 2.8 ?
Click to expand...

A big difference in AF speed for sure.
 
Werecow said:
A big difference in AF speed for sure.
Click to expand...

Not a difference relevant to the price.

In my opinion, if the only thing you're looking for is image quality, there is no reason to get the canon over the Sigma. The sigma can be had for £450, compared to the canon for £650. For the extra £200 you get better build, slightly faster AF, weatherproofing, and better resale value.
If money allows, get the canon. If not, get the sigma. It's still a cracking lens.
 
foodpoison said:
In my opinion, if the only thing you're looking for is image quality, there is no reason to get the canon over the Sigma. ......
Click to expand...

I had the chance to pop off a few shots with a Sigma recently and compare it with my Canon 2.8 IS.....on a 5D

The Sigma was clearly better at the wide end but got seriously left behind at the long end. The centre of the image wasn't too bad but the fall off towards the edges was pretty dramatic.

Sigma's copy variation is probably much broader than Canon's and I've no idea whether I put a good one up against a bad one.

Bob
 
There will be a massive difference in the resale value between the Canon and the Sigma, I own the Canon and have tried the Sigma, I would take the Canon every time and found much less drop of at both ends of the zoom over and above the Sigma, you will find the Canon a much faster lens which for sport is important.

John
 
you don't need IS for sports but you may want the IS version, as it will focus faster and will be better in the rain - both are big factors if you are shooting outdoor sports
 
You might also consider the 200mm f/2.8 L prime if you're likely to stay at the long end of the zoom anyway. About half the price of the 70-200 and much better IQ. Downsides are no weather sealing and foot zoom.
 
pxl8 said:
You might also consider the 200mm f/2.8 L prime if you're likely to stay at the long end of the zoom anyway. About half the price of the 70-200 and much better IQ. Downsides are no weather sealing and foot zoom.
Click to expand...
I think that's a great idea. The 200/2.8 prime is a vastly under-rated lens. It takes an Extender very well too.
 
Canon Bob said:
I had the chance to pop off a few shots with a Sigma recently and compare it with my Canon 2.8 IS.....on a 5D

The Sigma was clearly better at the wide end but got seriously left behind at the long end. The centre of the image wasn't too bad but the fall off towards the edges was pretty dramatic.

Sigma's copy variation is probably much broader than Canon's and I've no idea whether I put a good one up against a bad one.

Bob
Click to expand...

Really? I've never noticed that.
Perhaps it's not as good as I thought it was :shrug:
 
I have the sigma 70-200 f2.8 :)

When purchasing the lens I took back to back shots at various lengths and apertures on both lenses...... With the exception of the IS (which was turned off for the test shots) the sigma was equally sharp but just a wee fraction slower to focus and I really do mean a fraction.

It certainly wasn't enough to warrant the extra hundreds of pounds difference in cost. Which is a little odd for me as I can be accused of being a gear snob at times :D

Also...... If I'm honest I prefer the black finish on the siggy as I feel sightly less conspicuous.
 
Thanks all for the replies.

So really I only want the IS if I am looking at low light shooting but not sports, portraits, for example?

A Flickr contact of mine uses the 200/2.8 prime - great shots! I think I want more of an all rounder though.

I assume the Extenders are compatible with the 70-200 2.8 IS?

I realise the AF doesn't work below f/5.6. What differences are there between the x1.4 and x2? Is it just reduction in image quality?
 
Freester said:
What differences are there between the x1.4 and x2? Is it just reduction in image quality?
Click to expand...

One thing to consider is that everything is subjected to whatever magnification you choose.....sadly this includes any abberations within the lens too (not to mention ones added by the glass in the T/C).

There's the obvious light loss factor but this won't be crippling with a f/2.8 lens.

Bob
 
Freester said:
Thanks all for the replies.

So really I only want the IS if I am looking at low light shooting but not sports, portraits, for example?

A Flickr contact of mine uses the 200/2.8 prime - great shots! I think I want more of an all rounder though.

I assume the Extenders are compatible with the 70-200 2.8 IS?

I realise the AF doesn't work below f/5.6. What differences are there between the x1.4 and x2? Is it just reduction in image quality?
Click to expand...

if you use an extender the lens will focus more slowly, also the 70-200 2.8 is a lump of a lens, so consider a good neck strap or a monopod
 
sportysnaps said:
if you use an extender the lens will focus more slowly, also the 70-200 2.8 is a lump of a lens, so consider a good neck strap or a monopod
Click to expand...

I already have a monopod. Does the 2.8 come with a collar or will I have to factor a collar into the cost?
 
the canon 70-200 2.8 IS comes with a collar. i'm guessing the non IS one does as well. image quality is fine with a 1.4x canon tele but it degrades considerably with a 2x canon tele on it. it's not a heavy lens imo, and i've hand-held mine all weekend in the past. it's a lens i wouldn't be without!
 
Hi not sure if it has the same settings as the 100-400mm but for sports shots IE motor-sport, it advises to turn off IS and leave in mode ll which enables panning, if the actions coming at you then a fast shutter speed would freeze the action of a slower one to enhance motion and because there are very few activities where i would be out at evening night, or indeed low light.t f4.5 id fine for me, the extra 200mm helps without the need of an extender where i believe quailty becomes an issue, the 100-400 is lens is fine for me, the f2.8 i could find no need for. really the extra cost from f4.5 to f2.8 is in the pro division and not in my mega league, but is marketed at the serious armature for those who require one.

Regards Mark.
 
OK. Thanks again for the replies.

Plenty to think about...
 
I hired the non IS version from Stewart last week and it is a cracking lens (I will be buying one as soon as I can sell the hardtop for my MX-5). I was fine hand holding it all weekend and didn't really miss the extra length of my 75-300.
 
I use the Sigma 70-200 mainly for motorsport & have never found any optical reason for wishing I'd bought the Canon.

The funny thing is, even when I was using my "budget" Tamron 28-300 for motorsport nobody ever spotted anything wrong with the results even when printed at A3 :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top