Please advise on Canon "L" zoom lenses

SIB

SIB

Messages
220
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
I'm sorry if this is silly question to you experts so please bear with this very amature new member. I'm potentially spending what for me is a lot of money so i want to be sure i'm ordering the right thing

I currently have a Canon 70-300 IS USM lens but am looking to upgrade this to one of the Canon 70-200 "L" series but can't decide which one. Obviously if money was no object it would be the F2.8 with IS but at over £1200 this is way out of my price bracket just now

The F4 with IS and the F2.8 without are within £100 of each other price wise so what are the advantages and disadvatages of each? Would the extra light gained from the 2.8 nulify the need for IS somewhat?

The F4 without IS is considerably cheaper than both of these, does IS really make that much of a difference? I've always shot with IS on on my current lens and am going to switch it off and see what difference it makes to me but thought i would also ask you guys too :). Most of my zoom work is done free hand which is why i've always though IS was a good idea.

Lastely (honest) are all of these lenses a major upgrade from what i'm currently using or will it not make much of a difference in the real world? I'm not usually photographing fast moving objects, more still or slow moving things in the distance.

The lenses will be getting attached to my 400D initially but i'm looking to upgrade this to a 40D or 50D when i can get either at a good price!! :D

Any advice much appreciated.
 
SIB said:
The F4 with IS and the F2.8 without are within £100 of each other price wise so what are the advantages and disadvatages of each? Would the extra light gained from the 2.8 nulify the need for IS somewhat?
Click to expand...
Both lenses are very very sharp, superb optically. Other than IS and the aperture, the main difference is that the f/4 version is considerably smaller and lighter.

Does f/2.8 nullify the need for IS? Not necessarily. IS will help to reduce camera shake - and the IS on the 70-200 f/4 is very good - so you can achieve slower shutter speeds hand-held without camera shake. But that's of no advantage to you if you usually shoot with a tripod or monopod, or if you don't want slow shutter speeds anyway (eg for sports).

SIB said:
I'm not usually photographing fast moving objects, more still or slow moving things in the distance.
Click to expand...

In that case I'd incline towards the f/4 IS, unless the shallow depth of field which you get at f/2.8 is particularly valuable to you.

SIB said:
Lastely (honest) are all of these lenses a major upgrade from what i'm currently using or will it not make much of a difference in the real world?
Click to expand...
They are very very good lenses. They are capable of delivering images which are sharper and have less optical aberrations (CA etc.). Whether or not it makes a difference to you depends on many factors, such as:
- subject matter - if you're photographing low-contract subjects then perceived sharpness will be low regardless of the lens
- technique - if you're pushing the limits of hand-holdability then you won't be getting all the sharpness the lens can deliver anyway
- output size - if you're just looking at images on screen, you're throwing away 80-90% of your pixels so you probably won't notice the improvement, but if you're printing large it will make a bigger difference.
 
I recommend going for the 2.8 non-IS. The reason is that this is a "lens for life" and you'll end up wanting the 2.8 aperture at some time in the future so you'll end up selling the f/4 to get it, losing money etc.

The question is, what are you going to be taking pictures of? If it's anything moving like birds, sports etc the IS isn't going to help you as the subject is moving, and the IS wont magically stop the player in their tracks for you whilst you take the picture. The key thing you need to do that is a fast shutter speed. The fast shutter speed is best achieved with a wide aperture, hence why 2.8 is better than 4.0, especially as the light drops.

If you are going to take pictures of stationary things at fairly slow shutter speeds (lower than 1/200th say) then the IS will help you to reduce the effects of camera shake or over-eager shutter button finger twitching (squeeze dont prod!!). However, once again the 2.8 aperture will help you to increase the shutter speed as it'll let in much more light so you wont be so liable to camera shake anyway.

The only drawback I can think of with the 2.8 is that it is larger & heavier. In my opinion that's a small price to pay.

So, go for the 2.8. It'll live with you a lot longer.
 
Oh, and yes you'll see a massive difference over the 70-300. The L lenses wil blow your socks off.
 
And and and...you can put a 1.4x extender on the 2.8 and get a 280mm f/4 lens which is really very nice indeed.
 
No doubting that the 2.8 IS is a great lens but it is a brute of a thing to carry and use. I would certainly recommend trying one just to experience the bulk before committing. I seriously wanted one but after borrowing a copy, went for the F4 IS instead as I couldn't see myself carrying the 2.8 all day.
 
Go for the 2.8 version.As another op said in reply, you'll only end up buying it oneday and risk selling the f/4 at a loss.It's not that heavy, i carry mine around all day at bike races and don't find it uncomfortable....:)
 
Good answer from Stewart. Just to add to the confusion, I have the 4 IS version in preference to all of the others. F/2.8 is a lump, no two ways about it, and I'd rarely use that aperture anyway.

But I also have a 100-400L which does the long stuff. If I had to cut it down to just one lens to do everything, and including all the options using an Extender, I would get the 70-300 IS lens that you already have. It is very good quality, has great range, and IS. It is not built like an L, but then very little is - a lot of the cost of an L goes into the construction design, eg non-extending barrel, and build quality like weather sealing.

To put it another way, if you get the 2.8 non-IS lens, there is a danger that you would resent humping it around, hardly ever use f/2.8, miss the 300mm reach, miss the IS too, and not notice a jot of difference in image quality. Which is not much of a pay back for a £1k investment. Those people that say the difference in image quality with an L lens is night and day better, well I've no idea what they're comparing it to but it's certainly not a 70-300 IS.

Final comment - IS stabilizes the viewfinder image as well as the actual photograph. Makes framing and accurate focusing with the centre spot much easier, regardless of the shutter speed you're using. Try your lens with the IS off, as you suggest.
 
Another thing to think about with regards to the F2.8 is auto focus. You will see no benefit now - but on a 40D or 50D the camera uses more accurate cross point autofocus on the centre AF point where the lens is F2.8 or wider.

In your situation I would take the F4 lens with IS over the F2.8 lens without. It is lighter which means you are more likely to take it with you. Also the IS is reported to be good for up to 4 stops. So while that will not help with stuff that is moving, it will help keeping things steady much more than the F2.8 ever could.

My choice would be buy a used 70-200 F4 IS then upgrade to the F2.8 IS if you feel you need the extra shutter speed (And once you have had time to save!). If you were thinking of buying new, then maybe change you position on that and buy a used 70-200 F2.8 IS.
 
Thanks for all the advice guys, i'm really learning a lot. Still not 100% decided what to do yet but i can see the benefits and disadvantages more clearly now :)
 
I chose the F/4 IS over the F/2.8 IS and F/2.8 non-IS mostly because it was so much easier to carry about. The F/4 is razor sharp wide open (sharper than either F/2.8 model wide open or stopped down to F/4) and has much better IS (4 stop vs 2 stop).

The F/4 fits in my kit bag without the need for a caddy to lug it around. Modern bodies can handle high-iso very well so wide apertures are not as essential as they once were. My 7D for example is very usable at iso-3200 and this gives a lot of options with an F/4 lens. F/2.8 was very important for DSLR's when IQ seriously degraded after iso-400, but recent DSLR's can give you an extra 1 to 3 stops for free.

...but if I was a Wedding photographer or regularly needed to shoot in low light the F/2.8 would be my choice.

I think the 70-200mm F/4 IS is widely regarded as one of the sharpest zoom lenses ever made by any manufacturer. My 17-55mm F/2.8 is considered very good, but it cannot match my 70-200mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top