Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM questions

M

magirus

Messages
568
Edit My Images
Yes
I am considering this lens and wonder if it's worth paying @ £450 more for the IS version. Also do these lenses work ok with both the 1.4x and 2x converters? Thanks in advance for any advice.:)
 
The 2.8 version will work with both the 1.4x and 2x converters (obviously losing either 1 or 2 stops of light).
 
As you know there are 4 versions of the 70-200mm. I'm lucky to have two, the f2.8IS and the f4. While it is true the f2.8IS is a heavy lens I can hand hold it shooting a static object down to 1/15 sec. If you think about the focal length "rule" I should not really be hand holding at 200mm at under 1/200. So 1/15 is a bit of a performance! I try to keep it to 1/60 to 1/100 for human subjects because they move. Optically it is superb and quick to focus too.

I've kept my f4 for days where I'm not shooting a wedding but shooting family stuff and I can choose not to lug the weight around. Going to take the dogs for a run on the beach later today and with good light the f4 might get an outing :)
 
I have the non-is 2.8 and am hopefully about to upgrade to the IS. Its a cracking lens, takes the 1.4 tc very well. The 2x loses a lot of IQ and i never use it anymore.

The f4 IS version is supposed to be the sharpest of them all and has a 4 stop stabiliser. Personally i still prefer the 2.8.
 
I have the f2.8 L IS and although it feels heavy the first time you pick it up, it's surprising how quickly you get used to it. The IS is worth every penny for me as I can't hand hold steadily below about 1/100th, and as for quality....well you will be blown away by how sharp and clear it is. Spend the extra and get it....now!
 
I had the 2.8 IS for a while. Cracking lens, just not very good with a 2x converter.
 
The 1.4 converter produces good results, but the 2x does have such a good rep. Stick to the 1.4

Heavy lens so go for the IS unless you are always going to use it on a tripod. If you can afford it you'll not reret it.

The f4 is a much lighter lens and can be used without the IS.
 
Contact Kerso he sells the 70-200mm f/2.8Is for about £1250 which if your looking at the non IS for about £1000 the difference is not as much cost wise and well worth spending the extra. I really like mine, it is a little heavy but an excellent lens.
 
Well I had the non IS version, great lens!! Now have the IS version.... I wanted to get low light portraits, needed the IS. You have to decide whether you have or will have a scenario where the IS means getting or not getting the shot. Sadly for most of us we can all think that day will arrive!!
Get the IS.
 
I have the f4, just upgraded to the 2.8 IS. Weight isn't a big issue for me as I've been mostly using my 100-400, but oh boy the colours, the bokeh...


Here's a shot from the other day.
120592658.jpg
 
Get the IS version.

If that's a bit of a stretch, I prefer the f/4 IS version to the non-IS f/2.8.

F/4 IS is under £800 from Kerso ;)
 
Thanks for all of the input folks, much appreciated. It seems there are pros and cons for all versions of the 70-200L. Putting cost aside, I have to say I am attracted to the f4 IS USM because of it's slightly smaller dimensions, but mostly the very large weight saving, as I will likkely be carrying this lens around for long periods in town and country. However that f2.8 aperture will always be a worm in my brain, "should I have spent the extra" etc! So I guess I'm on the fence right now and will see what the post Xmas sales bring.:)
 
magirus said:
However that f2.8 aperture will always be a worm in my brain, "should I have spent the extra" etc!
Click to expand...

That was my worry, my decision was to think of it as a bunch of money saved not buying the f/4 and flogging it later takeing the hit on depreciation and buying the f/2.8 later. The weight thing isn't that big a deal, I carried mine round London for a weekend on my back, used it once so it wasn't totally wasted.

Buyers remorse is a pain, I almost bought a car it was perfect but for the colour but was smart enough to wait a few days to get the same car in a colour I wanted and it was the same price.
 
IS mate is the way to go, carried it around on my 40D during a holiday to Egypt, never really felt the weight and some of the shots I got were stunning to me for my memories.
If you get the F4 then want the 2.8 to upgrade then will cost more than 400.00.
IS great lens if I had to get rid of it or the wife, well??
Im sure whichever lens you get will be great
Happy new year all!!
 
magirus said:
I am considering this lens and wonder if it's worth paying @ £450 more for the IS version. Also do these lenses work ok with both the 1.4x and 2x converters? Thanks in advance for any advice.:)
Click to expand...

Its a great lens, own the f2.8 IS and f4 non IS versions. Used mainly for motorsport, easily carried around all day, not heavy, try a 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8, now they're heavy lenses.

As mentioned, the 70-200mm f2.8 will take both the 1.4x and 2x TC's, you lose 1 f-stop of light with the 1.4x TC, lens becomes a 98-280mm f4 or 2 f-stops of light with the 2x TC, so you have a 140-400mm f5.6 however the TC's especially on this lens I've found slows the autofocus speed down considerable upto 50% on the 1.4x TC and upto 75% on the 2x TC, image quality is also hit hard, especially on the 2x TC. TC are primarily designed for the faster primes like 300mm f2.8, not the zooms. So you would get better performance with a 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 lens than the 70-200mm plus TC, probably even better through the range with the canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6
 
I too have the 2.8 is version its a brillient lens on its own but put a 2x converter on it and the a/f speed is awful. Pete in the above post has sumed it up nicely with hopefully a 300 2.8 to be added to my kit this year
 
Thanks for all of the advice guys, after a lot of deliberation I am getting the 2.8 IS version from kerso ! :thumbs:At the end of the day, if you need 2.8 and you don't have it, well.....you don't have it! :bonk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top