To 70-200 or not?

R

RefreshF5

Messages
6
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

Long time lurker on here and I've finally decided to post.

I began digital photography around the time the Canon 500D came out, which was my first beast. I loved it but after a couple of years I wanted something quicker and with better AF. So then I upgraded to the 7D and went with the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM which has proved it's weight in gold. Love the lens.

My predicament is that I feel I don't use my camera enough and because of that I've sort of fallen out of love with it. When I'm away on city breaks and constantly shooting I love it, but it's the lack of use that's killing me.

My main types of photography are cities and my nieces and nephews. They are still very young and fast so the 7D comes into its own here.

I've recently had a play with the Canon 70-200 mark II and I really liked the lens. I've always felt limited by the focal length of my current lens and I think this could be a good option. I wanted to run my decision by this forum first and also to seek some inspiration and guidance from more experienced shooters. What does everyone think to this idea?

I try to exclusively shoot in manual, and most of the time I think I do okay.

Another reason I am looking to extend my lens collection is that I have booked a Route 66 roadtrip later on this year and I really want to capture the best shots I can of the various places I will visit.

Sorry for the essay! Any guidance, advice or help really would be appreciated.

Thanks!
 
I had a 7D and the 70-200 Is mk2, now have a 7D mk2 and the same lens, both cameras took some great shots of fast moving kids, JFDI! [emoji41]
 
I just purchased the 70-200 in October and traded it today. I loved the lens but I only had one and below 70mm it's useless !!! It's a great lens and if your outside often with your family go for it. Indoors it won't be much use on the crop as it'll be too long. You've got the standard zoom for that anyway. It's heavy right enough and if you're not using your current gear maybe it's due to size and if so this will be even more likely to be left at home. You'll know best if that's the reason.
 
You say you have a route 66 trip booked ( green eyes) later on and naturally want lots of pics as a record of the trip.
I just wonder how much use a 70-200 would get on that trip compared to a wide angle or dare I say a fisheye.
I would do a lot of google earthing about where I was going and that would give you a good idea of what you will be seeing, after all you could always hire a lens if you decide you want a 70-200 but not for this trip
 
A 70-200mm would compliment your existing lens very well and give you a lot you don't have. Mine is easily my most used lens, in fact more than double the lens usage of my next most used lens (24-70mm). But they are generally big, heavy and obtrusive which a lot of people can't get on with together with the style of the images the you want to take.

Also don't sweat using manual mode :)
 
All version of the canon 70-200 L are great. I had f4is and now have f2.8is mkii. The 2.8 version is pretty heavy and expensive do you need to have f2.8? I only changed as I needed the extra stop for indoor sports. The f4is version would save you a lot money which could be used for a wide angle lens to compliment your other kit.
 
What is it you want the lens for? Portraits of Nieces and Nephews? A 70-200mm is a very nice portrait lens, but 70mm on a crop body is quite long for indoor shots and you might well struggle unless you have very big rooms. For out doors obviously this will be less of a problem. The 70-200 f2.8 is pretty heavy though and you might be better off with your 17-55 indoor and then maybe an 85mm prime for outdoor. For a trip on Route 66 a 70-200 f2.8 would be the last lens I'd think about taking, very heavy and IMO the wrong focal range for the type of shots you'd expect to take. YMMV
 
The f4 70-200 my best lens, but I haven't used it much as it's too big and heavy to walk around with and often won't go wide enough.
200mm isn't that big a magnification either so not brilliant for wildlife shots though a 2x converter might be an option.
It's probably at it's best for portraits and candid street scenes.
 
Shooting for fun, not work, I wouldn't think of having a 70-200. Big buggers that aren't particularly fun to use to my mind.

In your situation if I wanted something a bit longer, I'd probably consider something like a 135. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster...

The 70-200 (and 24-70) are good workhorse lenses, they get the job done, and cover unpredictable situations, and those where you don't have control over what's going on / where you shoot from. I'd never (OK very rarely) pick one up to shoot for fun though.
 
Hello everyone!

Wow quite a few responses so quickly, I do appreciate it.

Seems like there's a mixed consensus on the 70-200. For those that think it would be the wrong choice would you mind saying what would be your lens of choice for the road trip?

I know the focal length is going to have the crop factor but i thought it could be quite good during the trip at places like the Grand Canyon, Vegas etc where I want to try and get some landscape pics.

I probably wouldn't use the lens indoors, I'd stick to my normal zoom for that.

Reason for the f2.8 is that I'm a sucker for a shallow DoF, so I hadn't considered the f4. Looking at it now it is quite a bit cheaper. I take it it's still a damn good lens?

Thanks again for the advice. This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for!
 
Jayst84 said:
Shooting for fun, not work, I wouldn't think of having a 70-200. Big buggers that aren't particularly fun to use to my mind.
Click to expand...
I love using my 70-200mm f2.8, and I shoot for fun ;)

RefreshF5 said:
Hello everyone!

Wow quite a few responses so quickly, I do appreciate it.

Seems like there's a mixed consensus on the 70-200. For those that think it would be the wrong choice would you mind saying what would be your lens of choice for the road trip?

I know the focal length is going to have the crop factor but i thought it could be quite good during the trip at places like the Grand Canyon, Vegas etc where I want to try and get some landscape pics.

I probably wouldn't use the lens indoors, I'd stick to my normal zoom for that.

Reason for the f2.8 is that I'm a sucker for a shallow DoF, so I hadn't considered the f4. Looking at it now it is quite a bit cheaper. I take it it's still a damn good lens?

Thanks again for the advice. This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for!
Click to expand...
This sums up why I wouldn't recommend a 70-200mm, for your 'classic' landscapes you want wide angle. That's not to say you can't use the 70-200mm for landscapes, and there's a number of people that do. BUT it wouldn't be my first choice for landscapes as I'd generally choose a wide angle. Add to this that the 70-200mm f2.8 is big and heavy to be lugging across one of the biggest countries in the world it's not ideal. That being said, if you're driving across and not planning on doing a lot of hiking with the 70-200mm then obviously the weight is less of an issue.

If I'm going out with the sole intention of taking landscapes I use my 18-35mm (on full frame) and do shoot a lot at 18mm, sometimes I want even wider. If I'm going out for a general walkabout I take the 24-120mm f4 for a bit more flexibility, and have shot some landscapes at 120mm. I'm not sure if Canon do an equivalent, but if I was going away and was just taking one lens for a crop body I'd take Nikon's 16-80mm f2.8-4 as this gives the same effective field of view as my 24-120mm.

If I was doing this trip and had the 17-55mm f2.8 I"d take that for landscapes and general shots (you could always do a pano if you wanted more width) and then a lighter telephoto. I'm not familiar with the IQ of the different Canon teles but I'd choose one of their lighter 70-300/75-300/55-250 lenses. Whilst I'm also a sucker for shallow DOF I can't imagine what I'd be shooting that would require shallow DOF unless you plan on doing family portraits along the way, or plan on doing some 'arty' stuff?
 
I had the Canon 70-200 F4 and loved it, nice and lightweight and gave great results. The only reason I sold it was to upgrade to the F2.8 mkII- if I could have afforded to keep the F4 as well I would as it is much lighter. I really like the mkII and I would say if you can afford it and it's what you want, go for it. [emoji3]
 
Big fan of the f4 here, owned one for the last 6 years starting on a 400D and quickly moving to a 7D.

It's a simple answer to your question, yes, do it. If you can afford the f2.8 IS, then do it, but if weight is a consideration you will definitely not be disappointed by the f4.
 
RefreshF5 said:
Hello everyone!

Wow quite a few responses so quickly, I do appreciate it.

Seems like there's a mixed consensus on the 70-200. For those that think it would be the wrong choice would you mind saying what would be your lens of choice for the road trip?

I know the focal length is going to have the crop factor but i thought it could be quite good during the trip at places like the Grand Canyon, Vegas etc where I want to try and get some landscape pics.

I probably wouldn't use the lens indoors, I'd stick to my normal zoom for that.

Reason for the f2.8 is that I'm a sucker for a shallow DoF, so I hadn't considered the f4. Looking at it now it is quite a bit cheaper. I take it it's still a damn good lens?

Thanks again for the advice. This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for!
Click to expand...

If I were so lucky as to be going on that trip I would take a wide angle (10-20mm Sigma/ Canon) your choice.
If you still want a 70-200 then the f4 L is the way to go unless you really , really need f2.8 , then its not much use.
The IS version is stella, light , easy to use takes a 1.4 TC very well, retains AF and costs a lot less than the 2.8.
I fact with a bit of careful shopping you would probably get a wide and a f4 for the price of a 2.8( depends which one you want)
 
Another vote for the 70-200 f4. I have the is version and partnered with my tamron 17-55 and ef-s 10-22mm, I'd be happy with the balance of range, weight and cost that these provide for a trip such as yours.

A lot of comment above about how 70-200 is not appropriate for landscape but I disagree, for compressing perspective on route 66, I believe it will be an excellent choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RIR
Again, thanks for the input from everyone, it's truly invaluable.

I'm really liking the idea of the f4 and a wide angle lens. Seems by doing this I will have most bases covered, and within the price of the f2.8 mark II.

I've got a mate who is lending me his f2.8 for the weekend so I'll have a walk around lugging it and see how I feel but right now I am heavily swaying towards the f4.

Will keep the thread updated, and hopefully get far more involved in this forum, you all seem like a very friendly bunch :)
 
I don't think the 70-200 fits very well for your purpose, especially travel. Check out the 70-300L, it's small and compact and will offer greater reach if need be. Mine travels with me everywhere. It's a gem.

I'd be looking at a wide angle lens also.
 
Having used the 70-200 f2.8 and the f4, they both have their strengths.
Image quality wise, they are both excellent. The only advantage of the f2.8 is the extra stops of light you'll get and (slightly) shallower depth of field.
If you are doing weddings or sports where you really need the extra light then, the 2.8 is worth it, but I think for the rest of the time, the f4 will be fine. Also when you zoom to 200mm the compression will give you nice bokeh anyway, even at f4.
Besides, when you're out and about on a road trip, you're likely to be shooting at f4 or greater, so the f2.8 is a waste of space and hassle.

I would personally get the 70-200 f4 (IS version if you can afford it) for your trip, you will be grateful for the weight saving and the cost saving will allow you to buy either a 10-20mm wide angle or a nice light/fast portrait lens like the 85mm f1.8 (which has quick AF) for photographing the kids.
If you then decide that the f4 doesn't quite do enough for you, you could then upgrade to the f2.8. But frankly the image quality of the f4 is great and you won't have a problem in that respect.

Last year I went on holiday to Cumbria with my old 60D and although I had the 10-20mm and the 70-300mm, I took 90% of my photos with the 24-105 f4L. IE: That focal range and f4 aperture was fine.

Even Peter Hurley uses the 70-200 f4, it's that good. I wouldn't worry about the quality of it. And the weight saving, is worth it (705g vs 1490g) for carrying round.
 
Last edited:
As @troutfisher said, for somewhere like Route 66 you'd be better off wide. I went to Vegas and did the Route 66 and the Grand Canyon and all I took was my 10-20mm. Admittedly I did drop it whilst I was there and broke it, but to my mind it was my best choice of lens for the trip.
 
d3yOXyf.jpg
48mFmHq.jpg
3t8Qnnr.jpg


I took these on the 10-20 when I was in Vegas. Apologies for the size of the images! Not sure how to make them smaller. I'll remove them if needed.
Nick
 
Last edited:
Hi Nick,

Thanks for sharing these, cracking pics! I love the old rusty Ford and the GC looks amazing. Can I ask did you use a polarising filter for the GC pic?

Seeing these really does show the power of a UWA lens. I think I'll definitely pick one up, and I'll probably look at the f4 is 70-200. I don't actually go until the end of the summer so plenty of time to decide and practise :)
 
As people are saying the 70-200 might not be the best lens for this trip but it will be a great addition to your bag. It will be used lots, its great for kids outdoors etc., you don't have a lens with this focal length in you bag.

If I was in your shoes I would buy 70-200 F4 IS these can be had 2nd hand for £575-680 then with the left over from not buying a 2nd hand 70-200 f2.8 IS Mkii £500-600 you will have more than enough to buy a wide angle lens like a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM or Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM. This would than give you a lovely range from 10-200mm ignoring the crop factor.

The 70-200 F4 IS is a great lens, a good size and weight, sharp I really did love mine. If it was not for the indoor sports I would still have it.
 
I'd buy a premium compact for such a holiday. Maybe a fuji x70.
 
RefreshF5 said:
Hi Nick,

Thanks for sharing these, cracking pics! I love the old rusty Ford and the GC looks amazing. Can I ask did you use a polarising filter for the GC pic?

Seeing these really does show the power of a UWA lens. I think I'll definitely pick one up, and I'll probably look at the f4 is 70-200. I don't actually go until the end of the summer so plenty of time to decide and practise :)
Click to expand...

No filter on the lens ever, Although if I got another, I'd put one on it. I included three as they are all taken in the destinations you are going to. :)
 
My (Nikkor) 70-200 f/2.8 is a great lens, but I'd never take it on holiday.
I'm with frod - a premium compact is what I'd use, but if you're wedded to a dslr then a 10-24 or similar, and maybe something longer and slower (but lighter) if you've room.
 
I got a 70-200 2.8 is, mk1. I love it, but have to agree with the consensus that is is a heavy beast. It's OK to start with, but that weight (I have it on a 6d) has led to to buy a different strap, just to make the carrying easier.

Using it approx 70% of the time, I get frustrated when I see an image and take it down to 70mm, and need to go shorter. Changing it is easy, but then having to store and carry is a pita!

Perhaps I should have looked at the 4is, but I was suckered by the 2.8....

You have time on your side, look out for one that's for sale. They tend to hold value, so even if you end up selling, you won't lose too much on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top