Which Canon EF 70-200?

antonroland

antonroland

Inspector Gadget
Messages
4,210
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all

I need your valued input again.

I need to get a 2nd 70-200 L and would appreciate inputs about weather sealing and IQ.

AFAIK only the f/2.8 IS has the rubber ring at the back.

I will probably consider the f/4 as it is much smaller and lighter so the missus can also work with it. For some reason she does not enjoy the 2.8:thinking::shrug::D:D

I have heard once that the f/4 is actually better than the 2.8 in terms of sharpness and colour rendition but is this the IS or non-IS?

Much appreciated(y)
 
Wow, that was FAST!!(y) cheers!

Got any examples to show...2.8 vs 4?:nuts:
 
F/4 IS is sealed, non IS versions aren't
 
I have compared the 2.8IS with the 4IS and it is very hard to tell the difference (if you stop the 2.8 down to 4), unles you are printing out large scale and even then ive been told its minimal.

If i were you i woudl go for teh 2.8IS then you have the avaialbility of 2.8-4 and IS and you will not be in my stuation. I have the 4 IS and sometimes just want an extra stop but cant.

Oh and IS is always a godd thing.
 
grumpybadger said:
I would expect, based on other lenses, that the non-IS will out resolve the IS version.
Click to expand...

Normally the case but slightly different here. The f/4 IS optics were redesigned and this gives it the edge over the f/4 non-IS.

I've got both IS versions and had both non-IS versions. Real world shooting at f/4 and you'd be hard pressed to know which was which.

Bob
 
Hi,

photozone review says .....

Every now and then EOS, the goddess of mercy, seems to speak to the Canon lens designers and this time they listened carefully. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date. The lens was capable to deliver a near-flawless performance is all categories. The resolution figures are stunning regardless of the setting. Distortions, vignetting and CAs are nothing to worry about. The build quality is excellent with the new sealing as a another highlight. On top of that the lens now features a image stabilizer with an efficiency equivalent to 4 f-stops (at cost of shutter speed). The only heartbreaking drawback for some is the price tag which increased significantly to a whopping grand - price/performance-wise this is still very sound though.
Click to expand...

Full review HERE

Mike.
 
Thanks everybody.

Looks like it will be the f/4 IS then. Personally I'm not hell-bent on IS but it would seem that the redesigned optics play a large role and the weather sealing is nice too.

Cheers(y)
 
antonroland said:
...Looks like it will be the f/4 IS then. Personally I'm not hell-bent on IS but it would seem that the redesigned optics play a large role and the weather sealing is nice too.

Cheers(y)
Click to expand...

Up here (UK) then I'd advise the 2.8 IS...especially if a 1.4x T/C is going to be used. Down in your part of the world, you generally have better light and the f/4 IS should be fine. Subject isolation is a different matter though.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Up here (UK) then I'd advise the 2.8 IS...especially if a 1.4x T/C is going to be used. Down in your part of the world, you generally have better light and the f/4 IS should be fine. Subject isolation is a different matter though.

Bob
Click to expand...

I have the 2.8 IS...it is just that the missus won't use it seriously because it is too heavy for her but she does enjoy the zoom range.

TBH the weather sealing is a bit more important to me than the IS but size and weight dictates f/4 in this specific exercise.

On subject isolation, would the 2.8 IS at f/4 be very different from the f/4 at f/4? Cant see it being terribly different in that regard.:shrug:
 
antonroland said:
On subject isolation, would the 2.8 IS at f/4 be very different from the f/4 at f/4? Cant see it being terribly different in that regard.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Nope...t'will be the same. I use the 2.8 IS and got the 4 IS primarily for my father-in-law to use as he found the 2.8 heavy (78 y.o)

Bob
 
I have the 2.8 non-IS. This is a 100% crop of a rather fast moving thing

eyes.jpg


I couldn't really ask any more of it.I've got some almost as good with the 1.4 and 2x TCs.

What you haven't said is what you'll be using the lens for. On my 300 f4 IS for this sort of stuff the IS for me made no difference so turned it off. It may make more of a difference for other sorts of photography though.
 
iansmart said:
What you haven't said is what you'll be using the lens for.
Click to expand...

Anything and everything but paid work is mostly weddings. Some sport too...(school rugby)
 
In reply to iansmart about the IS on his 300mm F4, I read a good article about the pros and cons of IS on these lenses and a good point made was "how often do you take out a 300mm lens without a tripod".

I can understand the 70-200's needing it as it's more hand holdable but like iansmart said he turns the IS off most of the time on the 300mm.

Choccy...
 
Choccy said:
In reply to iansmart about the IS on his 300mm F4, I read a good article about the pros and cons of IS on these lenses and a good point made was "how often do you take out a 300mm lens without a tripod".

I can understand the 70-200's needing it as it's more hand holdable but like iansmart said he turns the IS off most of the time on the 300mm.

Choccy...
Click to expand...

I am not terribly steady...in fact I wobble like a bowl of jelly sometimes but I also swith off the IS most of the time.

I appreciate that the IS also chews battery but this has been of little consequence to me
 
Choccy said:
In reply to iansmart about the IS on his 300mm F4, I read a good article about the pros and cons of IS on these lenses and a good point made was "how often do you take out a 300mm lens without a tripod".

I can understand the 70-200's needing it as it's more hand holdable but like iansmart said he turns the IS off most of the time on the 300mm.

Choccy...
Click to expand...

The 300 f4 IS is easily hand holdable, it is barely any longer than the 70-200 2.8. I've never use it on a tripod or even a monopod.
 
300 2.8 IS, I love this lens and gives great results, always hand held.


 
iansmart said:
The 300 f4 IS is easily hand holdable, it is barely any longer than the 70-200 2.8. I've never use it on a tripod or even a monopod.
Click to expand...

I totally agree...it's hardly worth the effort of a tripod unless you're down below 1/100th for some reason.

Bob
 
steavyd said:
300 2.8 IS, I love this lens and gives great results, always hand held.
Click to expand...
:razz:

:D:LOL:

Go away, go very far away and do not come back soon.:LOL:


I have rented one at a local outfit not too long back and did NOT want to part with it a few days later;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top