DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

I'm going to the USA in 4 weeks time and was looking at buying a 70-200 while I'm over there.

I've been thinking the F4L IS is the way to go because it's much lighter and smaller (I have a 350D).

The 2.8 is obviously a better lens, but at $1000 and quite a bit of weight more I am a little undecided.

Has anybody used both these lenses and have an opinion?

Thanks

David

I've used the non-IS f/4, and own the 2.8 IS. I also use a 350D fairly often as well as my 30D. Like you, I found the small size quite attractive but went for the bigger lens because at the time the f/4 IS wasn't released (or even rumored). On a 300D/30D the big lens works well and feels quite balanced. With a 350D it very much feels as though I'm clipping a plastic toy onto a big chunk of metal goodness. I would not feel at all comfortable dangling the lens off the 350D just holding onto the grip on the camera (I do this regularly with the 30D as a one-handed way of carrying that combo).

As with all things, it depends a lot on what you want to do with it. The bigger lens is wonderful in low light and gives great control of depth of field. I use it as a macro lens via the 500D as well, and it works much better than the f/4 version (I have a filter adaptor that lets me fit the 77mm 500D to the smaller lens).

But with the f/4 you'll be much more inclined to carry it everywhere just on the off chance. I know I often leave the f/2.8 at home because I just can't face carrying the weight for a whole day. I'm tempted to buy a smaller lens just for this reason... but not $1000 tempted

As well, what can you get with the price difference? From memory it's about an 85/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4, so there's that to think about too. Would you get more mileage out of a flash plus the f/4? In that sense, a Benro tripod will do a lot more for you than the extra stop, in terms of getting decent photos in more situations. But if you think the f/2.8 lens is big, the tripod is gargantuan

I'm also picking up a Manfrotto 055PROB to replace my current POS tripod while I'm over there.

For most of the travels I'll be using a monopod but as you say, the harder shots need a tripod.

A friend who has a 2.8IS let me use it for about 1/2 hour a few days ago and it's a tank! I see what you mean about carrying it around. Even having it in the bag is going to be a pain.

I like the difference comment - I have a 580EX so maybe a 10-22.......

So many lenses.... so little cash...

I have had a play with the 70-200 f4 IS for a while couple weeks ago (no, I havent changed band camp ) its a very nice "little" telephoto lens.

You can go around the street virtually unnoticed with this lens, but with the 2.8, you certain will get some attention.

The weight, its just so delightly light compared to the bigger brother.

I havent got the shots here, but the results is pretty stunning on this small lens.


Question is, do you really need the f/2.8 speed? Where and when do you mostly plan to use this lens? If you using it in plain daylight all times, the f/4 should be more than enough. Travelling quite a lot, definately the f/4 will be good for you to carry around.
But if you do shoot serious stuff that every fraction of the speed and quality counts, then the f/2.8 is no doubt.

Thanks YiP

I see what both of you mean about small and light versus big and bulky.

I will be using it for portraits, sports (Cricket mainly - thinking of getting a 1.4x) and as a longer walk-around lens. Judging by what you've both said, and my expereince with the 2.8IS, I don't think I'll really need the 2.8.

Did you get a chance to use it with a 1.4x? Would love to hear experiences with that combination. My "zoom" at the moment is the "poverty pack" 75-300 II USM.

Also consider the 200mm f2.8L prime lens... compact/stealthy, relatively cheap, and very good optical performance!

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses ... /index.htm

I've used the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 1.4 (no I definitely haven't changed camps , my business partner has one and the other is about to get one). They are work beautifully together and I don't find them that heavy to be lugging around. IQ is still fantastic with the extender on.

Just remember with a 1.4 on the f4 you will end up with a f5.6 as max aperture, this can hamper things a bit in slightly adverse lighting conditions for sports. Even the f2.8 will end up as an f4 with the extender on, which is getting border line.

I've not used the f4 version but expect the quality to be great as well just a lot lighter. But in reality the f2.8 + extender + body weighs less than 3kg anyway... It isn't that much when you are walking about with it over a shoulder (not something I'd hang round my neck though).

Brett

dviv wrote:Did you get a chance to use it with a 1.4x?

I have the Canon 1.4x and Sigma 2x, and both work pretty well with that lens. The 1.4x is great, but I wonder if f/5.6 is really enough for any kind of sport. Maybe I'm too used to fast lenses, but I find the 2x TC acceptable but not brilliant in that respect. But compared to the size and weight of the 300/2.8 or the 400/2.8 the 2x TC is marvellous

Image quality should be largely unaffected by the 1.4x TC, especially on a crop camera. I suggest the Canon one just on general principles, it's not as though Poon charges a huge Canon premium. If you can afford it, well worth the purchase.

Thanks guys - some great points there.

I was looking for a portrait lens as well (other than the 100mm 2.8 Macro) so I definately want the 70mm end. Was a great idea tho, thanks Bugeyes!

I see what you're saying about F5.6. For sports, 200mm on the 350D goes out to 320mm, so even without the TC it's a pretty good zoom.

I guess it means if I want the 1.4 I won't be hand-holding at cricket games any more

The 75 - 300 is surprisingly good considering it's price:

Not a bad image, but if you're shootng like that now something a bit sharper at the long end will definitely help.

dviv wrote:I guess it means if I want the 1.4 I won't be hand-holding at cricket games any more

Except on those days when you're getting 1/1000th at f/5.6 and batsmen are walking at the slightest snick because its only 40° once they're back inside the clubhouse

moz wrote:Not a bad image, but if you're shootng like that now something a bit sharper at the long end will definitely help.

dviv wrote:I guess it means if I want the 1.4 I won't be hand-holding at cricket games any more

Except on those days when you're getting 1/1000th at f/5.6 and batsmen are walking at the slightest snick because its only 40° once they're back inside the clubhouse

Exactly right! - Last game of the season (I was playing) was 36 degrees - it was nasty.

Even with that lens I was regularly getting 1/2000th at F5.6 during this summer. Would love to have something sharper for these types of shots.

Pic above was a nick, and he did walk

I purchased the 70-200 F4 (non IS) last month for approx $900 AUD and am extremely happy with it. It is fast, light, built like a tank (L quality throughout), a great walk around outdoor general/portrait/flower/sports lens.

According to most reports (and I've read hundreds on this lens) it is at the very least as sharp as the F2.8 version and the image quality is amazing.

Having said all that, I would like the IS version but cash is a premium in my household. I have used the F2.8 version (non IS). It's not built like a tank, but rather a battleship. Either way, you can't go wrong.

Here are a few photos with this lens:

http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=25458&highlight=

Some Fantastic Photos there ozimax!! I've heard nothing but good things about the F4's

The 70-200's seem to be such a versatile range. I guess the only thing that decides what version you get is how far the budget will stretch

And I can always save the pennies for a 400/2.8L IS down the track! (HAHAHA)

I actually thought the same thing myself, but as I do a lot of travel (and I am a "smaller is better" freak), the F4 will do me just fine. Just use a tripod when you can.

I took some shots from a tinny today out on the river and that was definitely without a tripod! I also carried the F4 to the Easter show a few weeks ago, 13 hours walking and no problems with the back!

Ozi.

Those pics are fantastic ozimax.

Thanks for all your comments, things are much clearer in my head now!

Here's hoping I get approval from the minister of finance! (Got the OK for the Tripod - just need to work on the lens )

dviv wrote:Here's hoping I get approval from the minister of finance! (Got the OK for the Tripod - just need to work on the lens )

We're all a bunch of "Snags" (Sensitive New Age GuyS)!

"Not me buddie, I'll spend what I want to spend, I'm the boss around here..(if it's OK with you honey...)"

I guess I'm lucky then. I argued with my wife that I couldn't afford to get the 70-200 IS 2.8...she won the argument and said that she'd pay for it even.

Wayne, what a women. I think you need to take her out for dinner, not too expensive, maybe Maccas or something, need to keep saving those pennies for an 85 F1.2...

Seriously, do you think the 70-200 F2.8 IS is worth the extra moolah and weight?

Ozi.

Ozi,

Did that already but went a bit more than maccas

For me the IS is a dream lens as it's flexible enough in any lighting condition. I was ready to hand over the $$ for the f2.8 non IS and convinced myself that I'll just use the monopod when required. Having the portability of NOT having to use a monopod is great especially when I'm trying to take candid shots of people.

It's a personal choice, for me it was the smart thing to do as it's a long term investment and I know that I'll be able to make it back with photo shoots.

PiroStitch wrote:Ozi,

Did that already but went a bit more than maccas

For me the IS is a dream lens as it's flexible enough in any lighting condition. I was ready to hand over the $$ for the f2.8 non IS and convinced myself that I'll just use the monopod when required. Having the portability of NOT having to use a monopod is great especially when I'm trying to take candid shots of people.

It's a personal choice, for me it was the smart thing to do as it's a long term investment and I know that I'll be able to make it back with photo shoots.

Having just received my 70-200 F2.8 IS, IS is definitely worth every penny. If you can afford the F2.8 IS get it. You wont regret it.

ozimax wrote:Wayne, what a women. I think you need to take her out for dinner, not too expensive, maybe Maccas or something, need to keep saving those pennies for an 85 F1.2...

Seriously, do you think the 70-200 F2.8 IS is worth the extra moolah and weight?

Ozi.

yes and no, all depends on what you use it for, ive had the 2.8 for a while and love it, i dont think its heavy and IQ is superb, I used the IS a few times over the weekend and its a good 2 stops better for me in terms of camera shake vs the non-IS, IQ is the same, if you shoot in low light or with low speeds for say motorsport IS is very useful.

Thanks all for the input. I really enjoy the F4 version but the F2.8 + IS seems really appealing. I seem to use this focal length 80% of the time as opposed to something shorter. (Having said that I would love an ultra ultra wide EF L lens but Canon doesn't make a zoom like that to my knowledge).

The cash is not the major concern for me - quality always pays for itself, but more the weight of lugging the thing around the world. It is a heavy beast. I haven't used IS but it seems to be the go.

Ozi.

Ozi,

Canon have the 16-35mm EF lens but on a cropped body it's useless hence why they came up with the 10-22 EF-S. Similar to the 12-24 DX for Nikons I guess.

I don't want to go down the road of EF-S as sometime in the future I will buy a full frame camera body which makes the EF-S redundant.

Any opinions on the Sigma 12-24mm which I believe is EF compatible?

PiroStitch wrote:Canon have the 16-35mm EF lens but on a cropped body it's useless

I find the 16-35 an excellent compromise between the slow 12-20-ish zooms and my desire for a fast UWA zoom. I just don't see a full frame 12-24/1.4 zoom becoming available any time soon.

Ozi: I really like the Sigma 12-24, but it's not great as a photojournalism replacement for the 16-35 on a crop body. Focus is slow and max aperture is f/4.5. If you shoot landscape it's brilliant but I'm tossing up selling my copy now that I have the 16-35 and a pano rig, as I very rarely use the 12-24 for anything except tripod shots, and likewise usually at f/8 or slower and manual focus... all of which suggest that a pano rig will give me the same results using a lens I get more use out of. Make me an offer

Moz, PM on the way.

ozimax wrote:The cash is not the major concern for me - quality always pays for itself, but more the weight of lugging the thing around the world. It is a heavy beast. I haven't used IS but it seems to be the go.
Ozi.

I agree. While the cash is a bit of an issue, in the long run it's not that much money

That's why I was looking at the compromise of sorts - the F/4 IS.

Thanks again guys!

dviv wrote:Those pics are fantastic ozimax.

Thanks for all your comments, things are much clearer in my head now!

Here's hoping I get approval from the minister of finance! (Got the OK for the Tripod - just need to work on the lens )

dviv, I know this thread is about comparing the Canon 70-200 F4 and F2.8L so I hope you don't mind me hijacking this thread to ask this question of the guys here.

What about the Sigma 70-200 F2.8? This lens is about the same price of the Canon 70-200 F4 non-IS. Is the image quality better than the F4? Anyone has any thought on this lens in comparison with the equivalent Canon's offerings?

I don't know anything about Sigma lens, but I doubt if it's possible to get any better image quality than the 70-200 F4.

ozimax wrote:I don't know anything about Sigma lens, but I doubt if it's possible to get any better image quality than the 70-200 F4.

(Unless you start using primes etc)

Does the Sigma have IS (or the Sigma equivalent?)

IS is one of the reason why I am happy to go with the F4. It compensates (slightly) for going from F2.8 to F4.

I have no idea about IS on the Sigma. You can check this thread out:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

dviv wrote:Does the Sigma have IS (or the Sigma equivalent?)

No it doesn't.

In Sigma lesnes it's labelled as OS [Optical Stabilisation]. The 70-200 doesn't have it unfortunately.

young_einstein wrote:

dviv wrote:Does the Sigma have IS (or the Sigma equivalent?)

No it doesn't.

In Sigma lesnes it's labelled as OS [Optical Stabilisation]. The 70-200 doesn't have it unfortunately.

Thanks! I thought that it didn't but the Sigma web site is so bad it can be hard to tell