Canon 70-200 L regret

markrichardson

markrichardson

Judge Judy
Messages
1,852
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I've recently gotten a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and I'm beginning to wonder if I've made a bad decision.

I find the weight means that I'm not taking it with me as much as I'd like, and I miss having image stabilisation.

I'm beginning to wish I'd gone for the f/4 IS... can anyone persuade me it was the right choice?!
 
I got this lens recently and have not been dissapointed a single bit!

I admit, the weight is a little bit of a problem however carry it on your shoulder and it doesn't hurt. I managed to cycle 8 miles with it on my shoulder, so I am sure you can walk a small distance :)

As soon as I got the lens, I noticed a huge difference in the quality and found myself no longer photoshopping my images,and instead, copying and resizing and then uploading straight to the online gallery system.

Once you get to use the lens a little more you will see the benefits. If you are using it for motorsport you will soon see the difference in quality you are getting with this lens.
 
markrichardson said:
I've recently gotten a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and I'm beginning to wonder if I've made a bad decision.

I find the weight means that I'm not taking it with me as much as I'd like, and I miss having image stabilisation.

I'm beginning to wish I'd gone for the f/4 IS... can anyone persuade me it was the right choice?!
Click to expand...

Hi Mark,

A few years ago I sold my EF 300mm f/2.8 (non-IS), due to the weight factor, and I soon regretted it as I the f/4 IS, though a great lens, did not match the f/2.8 IQ. I recently bought an EF 300mm f/2.8 IS on here and I have never been happier. I often carry it along with my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS in a Tamrac backpack and I spread the load for balance.

Don't get rid, get used to :)

Bob
 
I feel sorry for you Mark so I will take it off your hands for £50 ;)
 
markrichardson said:
I've recently gotten a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and I'm beginning to wonder if I've made a bad decision.

I find the weight means that I'm not taking it with me as much as I'd like, and I miss having image stabilisation.

I'm beginning to wish I'd gone for the f/4 IS... can anyone persuade me it was the right choice?!
Click to expand...

This is not a heavy lens by any means of the imagination, as in previous post the 300mm f2.8 is 2.5kg's the 400mm f2.8 is 5.6kg's, and I have friends who think nothing of carrying them around, I happy carry around the 70-200mm f2.8 on a 1D Mkii body, no problems, use a OP/Tech strap, and for last 3 months I've had my wrist in plaster as well. Advice is get out there and use it
 
markrichardson said:
I'm beginning to wish I'd gone for the f/4 IS... can anyone persuade me it was the right choice?!
Click to expand...

No - if you are leaving it at home, you've made the wrong choice.

I find if a lens stay at home, then it needs to go. It could be the best lens in the world, but its no good stuck at home.
 
I went the other way to Bob, I rarely used my 70-200L f2.8 IS so I have just sold it and bought a 135L and 2x converter. I already have a 1.4x converter and whilst I realise that the IQ with the converters will probably not be as good as the 70-200L it will be lighter on the camera, look less like a milk bottle and give me the option of f2 if i want it.

Each to their own really I suppose.
 
markrichardson said:
I'm beginning to wish I'd gone for the f/4 IS... can anyone persuade me it was the right choice?!
Click to expand...
Of course it was the right choice. You picked this lens for a reason and you're just having second-thoughts which is entirely natural when you spend that much money. Soon enough you'll learn to love it and the other lens(es) will become a distant memory.

Get out there and take some shots and you'll soon remember why you made the decision you did.
 
pchidell said:
I'll knock that up to £60... I agree, awful lens. Just drop me a PM... :D
Click to expand...

Tempting as that offer is...


As I suspected, polarised views. I'm aware (and often impressed) that lots of people carry much heavier lenses around because that's what they need for their subject matter. My only defence is that I will often have my camera in my hands for pretty much 8 hours straight. Maybe I just need to develop stronger camera muscles!

Part of me thinks I will get used to the 2.8 and I have no qualms about the image quality. On the other hand, in practice I think it would mostly be used for people (so stopped down a little) and the difference between the 2.8 and 4 IS is virtually nil at equal apertures. And having IS would be a bonus.

I suspect it's a dilemma that will stay with me a while longer!
 
I think you have answered you own question Mark. Swap to the 70-200 f/4 IS and you gain the use of a really fine lens, and you gain IS too. Since you don't use f/2.8 this does seem like an absolute no brainer.
 
Sorry, I cannot dissuade you. I chose the 70-200mm f/4L IS after a weekend carrying my friend's 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) on a second camera. I noticed the following:

1. I could carry the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens AND A SECOND CAMERA (30D) at just about the weight of the 70-200mm f/2.8L alone

2. Despite the 1-stop advantage of the f/2.8L non-IS lens; I can hand-hold the f/4L IS lens in lower light levels than I can hand-hold the f/2.8L non-IS version. I can hand hold the f/4L IS extended to 200mm using f/4 at 1/60 second and get close to 100% shake free images. At 1/30 second and f/4; my keeper ratio is smaller but still respectable. I cannot get 100% shake free imagery using 1/120 second at f/2.8 when cranked out to 200mm and I can get extremely few sharp images using 1/60 second at f/2.8.

I carry my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens everywhere on a second body in conjunction with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. This is the best lens combination I have used in 50 years of photography.

I use a round-screw in lens hood and a hand strap on my 70-200mm lens and camera. I carry the 17-55mm on a strap around my neck and the 70-200mm in a holster case at my left hip. I cross draw the camera from the holster case and since the hood is small enough to remain on the lens all the time, I am in action very quickly.

BAWBEE's comment that the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens IQ did not match that of his f/2.8L is mystifying. There is actually very little pixel peeping diference between the f/2.8L and the f/4L IS lens and really no noticible diffenence in day-to-day actual shooting. However, if one of the two lenses produces better IQ, it would be the f/4L IS not the f/2.8 model. Perhaps he had a poor copy of his f/4L IS lens. That happens...
 
rpcrowe said:
BAWBEE's comment that the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens IQ did not match that of his f/2.8L is mystifying. There is actually very little pixel peeping diference between the f/2.8L and the f/4L IS lens and really no noticible diffenence in day-to-day actual shooting. However, if one of the two lenses produces better IQ, it would be the f/4L IS not the f/2.8 model. Perhaps he had a poor copy of his f/4L IS lens. That happens...
Click to expand...
I think he was actually referring to the 300mm 2.8L non IS when he made the comparison?
 
rpcrowe said:
There is actually very little pixel peeping diference between the f/2.8L and the f/4L IS lens and really no noticible diffenence in day-to-day actual shooting. However, if one of the two lenses produces better IQ, it would be the f/4L IS not the f/2.8 model. Perhaps he had a poor copy of his f/4L IS lens. That happens...
Click to expand...
Really? Even with the f/2.8 stopped down to f/4?

I'm not disputing it, just interested, as I fancy a f/2.8 70-200mm myself.

Stroller.
 
HoppyUK said:
I think you have answered you own question Mark. Swap to the 70-200 f/4 IS and you gain the use of a really fine lens, and you gain IS too. Since you don't use f/2.8 this does seem like an absolute no brainer.
Click to expand...

That's more and more the conclusion I'm reaching, but there's always that niggling doubt that I'll make the swap and suddenly discover a need for the 2.8!

If I had to make the decision today, I think I'd go for the f/4 but who knows what I might think by next week?!
 
markrichardson said:
That's more and more the conclusion I'm reaching, but there's always that niggling doubt that I'll make the swap and suddenly discover a need for the 2.8!

If I had to make the decision today, I think I'd go for the f/4 but who knows what I might think by next week?!
Click to expand...

You could always pack a small prime, like 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, 135mm f/2.8.

Or just whack up the ISO :D
 
I wondered how long it would take for someone to call me a wimp! It's not that I can't hold it, it's just that it's not as comfortable as when I'm using other lenses so I tend to use it less.

I think I've pretty much talked myself into trading for a f/4 IS and as HoppyUK suggests, use primes if I ever need the extra f-stops.
 
there's an orderly queue forming for the next 135mm f2.8 to come in for for sales section!
 
Well, I sold my Canon EF 70-200L f2.8 IS and ordered a Canon EF 135L & x2 converter, do I have any regrets? :eek:

Not a one. :clap: Brilliant move, the 135L lens is amazing and the IQ of the images with either one (1.4x & 2x) or even two stacked is much better than I could have imagined, only downside is that the combination looks like a negative of a Liquorice Allsort.

Images from test shots here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top