Canon 70-200mm L

S

Sponge

Messages
229
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't like to hijack threads, so...

I'm 99% of the way towards buying the 70-200mm f4L IS, but I'm worried that in a few months I'll wish I'd spent the extra £100 and bought the f2.8L non-IS. I'd appreciate some advice on what I should consider when weighing up each lens.
 
You really will be weighing up the 2.8. It weighs a ton. The f/4 is smaller and lighter and in most cases can match the 2.8.

Depending on what you are shooting, I think I'd rather have the IS than not, and as the 2.8 IS is really pricey, the F/4 IS is the next best thing.
I couldnt have got the shots I took yesterday without IS, I know that much.
 
I hope to be able to use it as my main lens. So I think weight will be a factor. I can't see me using it indoors, so I'm thinking the f4 should suffice. I also imagine IS making it easier to use at 200mm.

If I were to look through my picture folder I think most of the shots would be outdoors, during the day and of my kids.

I have a tripod, but hardly ever use it. So the majority of my shots are hand-held.

It'll be going on a 7D and weather sealing is big plus for me.
 
Last edited:
IS helps me a lot at the longer lengths as I dont have very steady hands. Im going to miss my Canon f/4 IS when it sells, but In time Ill buy the Nikon f/2.8 VR version unless they release an F/4 VR in the meantime.
 
f2.8 all the way for me, its a solid bit of kit but not unmanageable (i shoot all day events with mine) and i dont pine for the IS

I think you would regret the f4 over the 2.8 but it depends on what you want to shoot with it
 
Indeed it depends what you want... I have the F4L IS, and I used to have the F4L. I don't miss the F2.8, and I certainly don't miss the weight. Many times I missed IS.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the F4L non-IS, F4L IS and F2.8 non-IS don't have weather sealing. Only the F2.8 IS? (Which is a whole new financial ball game!)

I've got an F4L non-IS and I adore it. I sometimes wouldn't mind having IS or the F2.8 but when I get a 7D I'll be able to push the ISO up a bit, the 400D is a bit naff at 800 & 1600...
 
From my own experience i found the 70-200 f2.8 to be the best Canon lens i ever owned, i am now a Nikon user and miss the lens so much.

i found the IQ on the 70-200 f4 IS to be not as good, focus was slower due to the IS, the thing that really sets the 2.8 apart is how sharp it is.

If i were you i would set off to a camera shop and try both,
 
i have the 70-200 f2.8 (non is). it's a great lens for portraits and the focal length is great for a walk about when you need that range - focus is very quick and accurate.

it's true though that it is heavy. i've never had a lens with IS so i can't miss what I've never had. i couldn't justify the cost of the 70-200 IS MK2 and I wanted f2.8 for portraiture. i don't ever feel i lose a shot because of camera shake, even at 200mm. i try to keep my shutter speed above 1/500 and my shots come out fine. I can handhold 1/125 at 200mm... just....

in short, it comes down to whether you need f2.8 or not.

most of the images in this thread were taken with this lens.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=271446
 
Last edited:
The IS gives you 3 stops, the extra aperture gives you one. No brainer unless you are shooting in low light, with moving objects and pushing the camera ISO to the limit....

But for the price differential, you could probably upgrade the body to a 5Dmk2 and get an extra stop of light from the ISO performance...
 
I've only just bought my 7D, so no plans to change the body just yet. :)

I'd just like to say thanks to everyone. :clap: This is really helping the thought process. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
In that case, it probably has better ISO than your last body so just go with the far more portable F4 IS... ;)
 
I love the shots in that collection Cuthbert. Those are the sort of shots my wife and I love to take of our two little 'uns. I'd settled on the f/4 IS until I saw those. Damn you! ;)
 
You can get shots like this with the f/4 too, these are all with the f/4. The 2.8 I don't think I'll ever upgrade to, it really is so big and heavy - people tell you this all the time but until you actually stick one on for yourself I don't think you realise - for some it's not an issue but it is for me, unless I was pro I don't think I'll own one. the f/4 is so light and so sharp. I'd buy it again even if it were the same price as the 2.8 just for the IS and the size of it

IMG_3828.jpg

IMG_3825.jpg

IMG_9831.jpg

IMG_9543-1.jpg

IMG_3868-1.jpg

IMG_3627.jpg
 
Personally i would get the 2.8. It will take a TC much better than the F4 version and the shallower DOF and stop of light is very useful to have at your disposal. And its really not a heavy lens at all.

Pretty much every BTCC image on my site is taken using a 70-200 +/- a 1.4x TC.

A few favourites this year:


F2.8
1043351445_gFEbX-M.jpg


With a TC
1043363770_RidSY-M.jpg


F2.8
1043367276_tiQ3L-M.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sponge said:
I love the shots in that collection Cuthbert. Those are the sort of shots my wife and I love to take of our two little 'uns. I'd settled on the f/4 IS until I saw those. Damn you! ;)
Click to expand...
But how many of them were shot at a wider aperture than f4? The 2.8 will give you 1 stop of light over the f4 and may be a bit sharper when stopped to f4. However, it is also a lot heavier. Unless you really NEED the extra stop (i.e. where you'd use it, you are pushing ISO too high AND lowering the shutter speed to a point where it is too slow to capture the action crisply) you'll probably find the IS much more useful.

Look at it another way. Let's assume you have the f2.8 and you are shooting at 200mm and pushing the ISO. You'll want to keep shutter speed above 1/320th to ensure you don't have a blurred shot due to camera shake. With the f4, you'll have 1 stop less light, so you'll need to shoot at 1/160th, but you'll probably find you can drop shutter speed to 1/50th and still get a good steady picture due to the IS. Alternatively, the ISO can be lowered to get a less noisy picture and keep the shutter at 1/160th.

I think the only place you'd find the 2.8 "better" than the IS is where you need a doubling of the shutter speed to help freeze action - for example, indoor sports. The IS is more useful in practically every other situation.

I have the f4L (non IS). When I upgrade (which I will), I will only consider upgrading to the f4L IS or the f2.8 IS. Practically, that means I'll end up with the f4L IS as it is much easier to lug around with me and is considerably cheaper.
 
dunganick said:
Personally i would get the 2.8. It will take a TC much better than the F4 version and the shallower DOF and stop of light is very useful to have at your disposal.

Pretty much every BTCC image on my site is taken using a 70-200 +/- a 1.4x TC.

A few favourites this year:
Click to expand...

Your first photo was F2.8 1/3200 and ISO 640. Would it have looked much different at f4 1/1600 and ISO 640? or even f4 1/3200, ISO 1250?. The second is f13 on a 1D body. That's not that much different FoV to the bare lens on the 7D, and whilst it may not TC as well as the 2.8, it still does with the 1.4TC and will autofocus on all autofocus points too. Not sure how much of a difference the extra stop would have made to the last picture though, but at a guess it would only have been slight. As joescrivens has pointed out, the f4 will do nearly everything the f2.8 can do, but it is in a much more manageable package.

To the OP: the other thing to ask yourself is what sort of photography do you do? Do you need all the reach you can get with 2x TCs and with fast shutter speed (i.e. indoor sports, outdoor sports - as demonstrated by dunganick above, long distance wildlife) or do you want it as a general purpose lens. If the former, the 2.8 may be for you, but if the latter, I'd be willing to bet the f4 IS is the better lens.
 
Last edited:
Yup, thats true enough, the shots were more to demonstrate the quality of the Bokeh and sharpness of the lens in combination with a TC. Naturally with the focal length of those shots there will be little visable difference between F2.8 and F4. That begins when you get up close and personal

Theses sort of shots the difference between F2.8 and F4 will make all the difference (in my opinion at least)

978880338_TWJb8-M-1.jpg


964938171_xjJRt-M-1.jpg


995541772_wU8uW-M-1.jpg


IS is fine if your subjects are not moving and the main appeal to me is that i can afford to get lazy with watching the shutter speeds for Pits/Paddock shots. A common issue for me during summer is shooting in the bright pitlane and then quickly trying to take a shot of a driver in the dark garages. IS would on occasion allow me to shoot with my outdoor ISO without having to boost it and get the shot. But truthfully i'm not sure it would actually be enough and i would still need to boost the ISO.

I'm a complete convert to f2.8, i still own a 100-300 F4 and i rarely use it over the 70-200 +/- a TC. The Sigma 100-300 is a good lens, but the 70-200 2.8 is that good.
 
Last edited:
Right, I've decided. Taking into account all that's been said, thank you all, I think the f4 IS is the way to go.

Price is obviously a factor and whilst I'd probably be happy with a heavier lens, I don't think my wife would.

During my deliberations I actually found myself considering the f2.8 IS from Jessops on 12 months interest free credit! :rules: :bonk:
 
I'm disapointed, i thought the photo of the grid girl would sway the argument :lol:

The F4 IS is a superb lens and i'm sure you will love it!
 
I hope my wife isn't reading this thread. :exit:

I decided to use the money I'd put aside to buy the f4 IS as a deposit on an f2.8 IS and got the balance on 12 months interest free finance. :bonk:

I'm excited :banana: and a little nauseous at the same time. :gag:

I need to sign and return some paperwork and the lens is showing as 'Out of Stock for Home Delivery - Usually Available Within 10 Days'. So there'll be a little wait. Long enough for me to come up with something to tell the missus. How about, 'The Goverment told me to spend my money. It's helping the country to get out of recession.' :D

Then again, they look very similar - maybe she won't notice. :suspect:

:woot:
 
Last edited:
Tee hee.... Enjoy the new lens :)
 
£57.83 tracked and validated with Quidco. Looks promising for a payout. Every little helps! ;)
 
Congrats - is on my Christmas list and can't wait.

Where did you order one from ?
 
From Jessops.

It wasn't the cheapest (using CPB) but it wasn't far off and they offered 12 months interest free. On top of that, there's a potential (it's not 100% guaranteed) 4% cashback via Quidco. So all in, it offered what I thought was the best value in my circumstances. The price actually dropped £20 just before I ordered it. :clap: (Part of me hopes it doesn't drop any further.)

You can apply for the finance online and I got a decision (accepted) in just a few minutes. You get a couple of emails, one of which includes a link to the finance company's website where you have the choice of downloading the credit agreement, or requesting a paper copy be posted. The former is obviously quicker and after 3 signatures, the paperwork (forms + bank statement/cc statement/water bill/etc) will be in the post this afternoon.
 
Last edited:
How will the combo of 70-200 f2.8 IS and EOS 7D be weight wise? Is it hand-holdable? Or should I start thinking about monopods?

I have a tripod, but never use it. I can't even remember what make/model it is!
 
lots of people handhold this, think weddings, you don't see monopods there much, personally i couldn't stand around all day holding it but others can
 
It's hand-holdable for sure. It just depends on what you're used to I guess...

A colleague of mine got into photography last year and bought a 450D with 18-55IS and 55-250IS.

He thought my 70-200 F4L was really big and heavy. Then when I got it out of the bag he thought my 300 F4L IS was absurd. A few months later he bought a Sigma 150-500 (which is about the same weight as the 70-200 F4L AND the 300 F4L IS put together), and doesn't think the 70-200 is particularly big and heavy anymore.

It varies from person to person, and depends on what body you use, but I am happy with handholding lenses up to about 2kg. However, a big part of it is weight distribution - I find lenses like the sigma 150-500 and canon 100-400 very unwieldy because when zoomed they are very long and have big, heavy bits of glass right at the front, whereas the 70-200 F2.8 and 300 F4 are weighted much closer to the body and feel more balanced and lighter because they exert less leverage on you.
 
Thanks. I guess I'll wait and see how it goes when I finally start using it. I can't wait! I'll be posting images right away. ;)
 
Dont forget the filter!

I have the 2.8 IS and ive been supremely happy with it since i've owned it - doesnt half knack your arm after holding it all day though!

Rich
 
I ordered this filter yesterday in preparation. I had a £25 voucher, so I could just about afford it. ;)

I posted the finance forms yesterday and they received them this morning. They emailed me just before midday:

We are happy to inform you that we have received your signed finance agreement. We have now advised the supplier that they are now able to process your order.
Click to expand...

Very quick process and just waiting for Jessops to get stock and deliver. :banana:
 
I'm very surprised by the number of people finding this lens heavy!?

Its pretty light and i wouldn't expect anyone of even slight build to struggle with it.

400 2.8 - then it starts getting heavy. And expensive.... i can only dream.
 
dunganick said:
I'm very surprised by the number of people finding this lens heavy!?

Its pretty light and i wouldn't expect anyone of even slight build to struggle with it.

400 2.8 - then it starts getting heavy. And expensive.... i can only dream.
Click to expand...

the 70-00 L IS the OP has ordered weighs 1.5 kilo. For a zoom, that's heavy. full stop
 
I've got comprehensive home contents insurance, but was wondering about extended warranties for lenses such as these? I never usually go for such things, but the price of this lens scares me a little. :)
 
From your posts I think you're an amateur (not an insult - just that you're not doing photography as a profession) and are going to shoot a bit on weekends and evenings and holidays.

That's the usage I have for my gear.

My 300 F4L IS, which is built pretty similarly, was bought in 1999 and hasn't ever needed the slightest bit of attention. These lenses are built for professional use where they will be banged about, mistreated, etc.

For amateur use where the lens is handled with kid gloves then they are unlikely to go wrong. I wouldn't personally bother with an extended warranty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top