Do I need the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM?

<p >A reality check would be a big help to me in choosing a new telephoto lens.</p>

<p >For over a year I've been lusting after the expensive, and heavy, Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens. Each time I start looking at other options, I'll read something about how great is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, and I'm back to square one.</p>

<p >I'm a serious amateur with an EOS 7D, an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens, and an EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (which was a kit lens for a film SLR from many years ago). With the cropped sensor 7D, the EF 28-105 gives me an effective zoom range of 45-168mm, which fits nicely with my EF-S 17-55, but doesn't give me much long range zoom.</p>

<p >Much of my photography is indoors with available light, thus the draw of the f/2.8 lenses. I also shoot a fair amount of Southeast Alaskan wildlife (eagles, whales, sea otters, puffins, etc) and could really use a longer telephoto. I'm now thinking of the 70-200 f/2.8L and a 1.4 extender.</p>

<p >Were I to get the EF 70-200 lens, with an effective zoom range of 112-320mm on the cropped sensor 7D, I'd have a gap between 55mm (on my EF-S 17-55) and 112mm (the low end of the EF 70-200). I'm thinking the sharpness of the EF-S 17-55 combined with the high resolution of the 7D would give me enough flexibility to cover that gap. Does that sound feasible?</p>

<p >Any comments about my desired lineup, or suggestions about other combinations, would be appreciated. Many thanks.</p>

<p>Talk more about your indoor shooting.</p>

<p>All the outdoor stuff that you mention will be fine with the excellent EF 70-200mm f/4L IS used in combination with a 1.4X TC. That's what I keep on my 7D when I'm shooting my 5D MkIII with a 500/f4 attached. The 7D is very good at ISO 800 and usable at ISO 1600. There's a big difference in lugging an f/2.8 vs. and f/4.</p>

<p>If you do get the f/2.8, then plan on getting an EF 2.0x TC-III. I guarantee that you'll want more focal length for eagles and puffins.</p>

<p>Consider getting the 70-200/4L and 1.4X for your outdoor needs, then putting the money you save toward an 85/1.8 or the outstanding 135/2 for indoors (or anywhere).<br>

Also, I've shot thousands of frames with my non-IS 70-200/2.8 and have never felt the need for IS, so you might be able to save some more $$$ there.</p>

<p>David, my indoor shooting is often in auditoriums and similar venues (awards ceremonies, school concerts, Russian Dancers, Native Dancers, etc), hence the desire for the f/2.8L.<br>

Thanks for your comments on the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. That would probably work for most of my needs. Eagles and puffins are often very close, but the 2.0 extender might be better for whales.</p>

<p>Here's a dancer shot with the 7D and an f/4 lens:</p>

<p><a title="Celtic dancer at Raglan Road Pub with live music by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6582142357_6ee673e99c_z.jpg" alt="Celtic dancer at Raglan Road Pub with live music" width="640" height="426" /></a></p>

<p>If this were your main usage, then I might vote for the f2.8, but the 7D's high-ISO performance is good enough that you won't really need it much</p>

<p>I use IS a lot. Here's one at 1/80-sec. and 169mm with my 70-200/f4-IS. Particularly if you're going to use it with TCs, you'll find lots of opportunity to use IS, IME.</p>

<p><a title="Powerful sermon by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5194/7386895696_dddb187c10_c.jpg" alt="Powerful sermon" width="534" height="800" /></a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Were I to get the EF 70-200 lens, with an effective zoom range of 112-320mm on the cropped sensor 7D, I'd have a gap between 55mm (on my EF-S 17-55) and 112mm (the low end of the EF 70-200).</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This statement is incorrect. The "gap" will be between <em><strong>55mm and 70mm, a total of 15mm</strong></em> (Or, in "crop factor terms" the gap is between 88mm and 112mm). Focal length is focal length is focal length, no matter what the size of your sensor, be it APS-C, 35mm Full Frame, medium format 6x4.5 or a view camera with 8"x10" sheet film.<br>

<br>

EF-S lenses are marked for focal length exactly the same as EF lenses. There is no "built in" crop "factor" to the numbers.<br>

<br>

15mm doesn't seem like a lot, but I was missing it on occasion on my last Scandinavia trip, with my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and Tamron SP 70-300 VC...</p>

I have both the f4 IS and the f2.8 non IS ( this sits between the MkI IS and MkII Is in optical performance). Optically any

of the 70-200 s will be fine. This is especially true on the 7D as it is the edges wide open that tend to be the difference

between them. As I general purpose lens I find the F4 IS more versatile as it is smaller and half the weight. If you really

need speed then you will need the F2.8 lens. Be aware that the 1.4 x does have an impact on IQ and AF speed. If you

plan to shoot with a 1.4 x a lot you may be better getting the F4 IS and the 300 F4 IS. I find I do need F2.8 for indoor

action sports like hockey but here you don't need IS as the shutter speeds are 1/400 or higher. I suggest that you try

them out and really think about the size and weight of the F2.8 lens before you buy it. With a film body the F2.8 lens was

amuse have but with the high ISO performance of digital F4 is fine for most applications. And alternative option is the F4

zoom and something like the 85 F1.8 100 F2 or the excellent 135 F2.

<p>"<em>I'm thinking the sharpness of the EF-S 17-55 combined with the high resolution of the 7D would give me enough flexibility to cover that gap. Does that sound feasible?"</em></p>

<p>There is no need to downplay the 70-200mm f 2.8. If you can afford it go for it ! It's a great lens... </p>

<p>If you can afford the f/2.8 and you'll shoot a lot above f/4 in low light and/or you'll use it with a 2X TC, then it makes lots of sense, so long as you can manage the weight. 400mm is not really that long for a birding lens and, as heavy as the f/2.8 is, it's nothing compared to the big birding lenses, like the 500/f4.</p>

<p>Gentlemen, thank you all. You've given me a lot of alternatives to consider, and several lenses I hadn't even looked at. The big question is affordability, and whether some of the less expensive alternatives will do what I think I need to do. It's time for more research. Again, thanks very much.</p>

<p>The cost of the 70-200/2.8 L IS II and one of the EF 1.4x lenses opens up a lot of opportunities for other possibilities. I highly recommend buying used to maximize what you can do for your budget.</p>

<p>I am not a big fan or user of IS so I'd be considering a used 70-200/4 L, 300/4 L, (both non-IS) and an EF 1.4x As someone else mentioned I would add either an 85/1.8 or 100/2 for your lowlight photos. All of these lenses would be cheaper, and in my opinion more useful than the 70-200/2.8 IS II. If you really want IS you could get a used 70-200/4 L IS instead of the non-IS and you would still be under budget!</p>

<p>Have you considered 100-400L for wildlife, plus an 85/1.8 for indoor events?</p>

<p>There are times when I wish that I wasn't lugging that heavy lens around, but overall I do not regret the 2.8 at all. For actually shooting I do not find the lens to be a burden, but that could just be a personal thing. I also have a battery grip on all of my bodies so the additional weight there may help with the balance, although I understand others may differ with me on that. For indoor sports such as ice hockey I am pushing up the ISO to 400 or 800 as it is when shooting wide open. I do a considerable amount of wildlife photography as well and agree the F4 is fine in good lighting, but I would add the some of the best nature/wildlife shots are in low light conditions and the 2.8 really shines there. If I had it to do over again I would stick with the 2.8. I have not used the 1.4X extender with this lens a whole lot as I usually go with a longer lens in those situations. The times that I have used it I have had no issues. There is no denying that this is a big and heavy lens. I would suggest trying both if possible before you make your decision. Best of luck to you.</p>

<p>About heavy lenses, if you really need a heavy lens to get the shots the way that you normally shoot, you'll find a way to bear the weight. I shoot mostly birds and wildlife and end up shooting a couple of thousand shots per week with a 500/f4, usually with a TC. I also carry a second body with my 70-200/f4 attached. Weight will wear you down if it caused by something that you need for only a few of your shots, but if what you need to get your bread and butter, you'll bear it. Only the buyer can decide.</p>

Do you need it? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons to want one.

 

The f/4L IS version is very sharp and performs amazingly well in low light. The 2.8 II version gives you one more stop

(useful for portrait work) and some extra sharpness that you probably won't notice in most cases.

 

That said, if Canon launches a higher megapixel camera, the 2.8 II might be a good match for the sensor, particularly for

those who need to make extremely large prints of detailed crops.

 

Do you hike a lot? Stick with the f/4L IS.

<p>If you <em>wanted</em> a new spouse, for example, there would be no "<em>need</em>" to it. Just sayin'</p>

<p>Whatever, I'd never buy a <em>new</em> lens on this level without IS.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>EF-S lenses are marked for focal length exactly the same as EF lenses. There is no "built in" crop "factor" to the numbers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What changes is the relative "function" (short tele, wide angle) of the lenses, not the focal length - the 'conversion' to 35mm film equivalents was a bad idea that has caused far more confusion than was necessary; but you knew that, right?</p>

<p >Thanks to all for the added inputs. David, your Vancouver Island locale must provide many subjects similar to my Sitka area.</p>

<p >Larry and JDM, thanks for your comments. Yes, I know what focal length is; I think we're mired in semantics here. The key word in my original statement was “effective,” as in, “...with an effective zoom range of 112-320mm on the cropped sensor...” Here is my analogy (please correct me if I am wrong): Were we to take a picture on the 7D of a given scene with an EF-S lens at 55mm, and another of the same scene with an EF lens at 55mm, the latter photo would appear to have been shot with a longer lens. You would get the same effect by cropping the first photo and enlarging it to the original size. The physical characteristics of focal length (depth of field and distance foreshortening for a couple) would be identical in the two photos, but the subject in the EF lens photo would be larger and would appear to have been taken at a focal length of 88mm.</p>

<p >I'm sure this has been argued ad infinitum by others. Until something better comes along, the conversion to an equivalent 35mm focal length for cropped-sensor cameras is a handy tool.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Were we to take a picture on the 7D of a given scene with an EF-S lens at 55mm, and another of the same scene with an EF lens at 55mm, the latter photo would appear to have been shot with a longer lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it would be identical photos. Lenses for crop sensors use the exact same focal length indications as lenses marked for full frame. So, a 55mm EF lens is equal to a 55mm EF-S lens.<br>

JDM is extremely right in that the equivalents are a lousy idea, as the "mistake" you made is the most common there is. Focal length is focal length is focal length. It's the same regardless of the format you use it on, or the format for which a lens was originally designed.</p>

<p>Here is what they should have told everybody. The present system is like comparing GOST and ASA for most people. All the more, since large numbers of people buying cameras have never used a modern 35mm camera with interchangeable lenses:</p>

<table width="582" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><colgroup><col span="2" width="65" /> <col width="129" /> <col width="132" /> <col width="191" /> </colgroup>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="65" height="15"> </td>

<td width="65"> </td>

<td width="129"> </td>

<td width="132"> </td>

<td width="191"> </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="60"> </td>

<td width="65">

<p><strong>Actual Focal Length (mm)</strong></p>

</td>

<td width="129">6cm (2 1/4")</td>

<td width="132">35mm</td>

<td width="191">APS-C</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15"> </td>

<td width="65">20</td>

<td width="129">NA</td>

<td width="132">ultrawide</td>

<td width="191">wide</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15"> </td>

<td width="65">35</td>

<td width="129">ultrawide</td>

<td width="132">wide</td>

<td width="191">normal</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15"> </td>

<td width="65">50</td>

<td width="129">wide</td>

<td width="132">normal</td>

<td width="191">short tele</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15"> </td>

<td width="65">80</td>

<td width="129">normal</td>

<td width="132">short tele</td>

<td width="191">tele</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15"> </td>

<td width="65">135</td>

<td width="129">short tele</td>

<td width="132">tele</td>

<td width="191">medium tele</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15"> </td>

<td width="65">200</td>

<td width="129">tele</td>

<td width="132">medium tele</td>

<td width="191">very long</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15"> </td>

<td width="65">400</td>

<td width="129">medium tele</td>

<td width="132">very long</td>

<td width="191">wow</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="15"> </td>

<td> </td>

<td> </td>

<td> </td>

<td> </td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>It's a great lens and it's heavy. I find the f4IS a better buy for everyday use and I use a combination of the 135/2 and the 200/2.8L when I really need more speed. There is a logic to having one lens that does the lot of these 3, but I know I don't want to carry around the f2.8 all of the time and the f4 is such an excellent lens with a mix of portability and quality that is hard to beat. My advice is to not buy the f2.8 II just because you read it is the "best". People often think they must have the "pro's choice" and find that in practice it is not perfect for them. Try them and see.</p>

<p>While a 70-200/4 may be a more useable choice, and adding a 1.4x tele to extend probably won't impact your shooting dramatically (other than adding FL of course, esp. w/ the FW update on the 7D), for what you are planning on shooting (outdoor wildlife), this seems a pretty good compromise.</p>

<p>However, for indoor & low light subject matter, I expect you'll see an impact. Have you considered a used 70-200/2.8 IS? (ie. not the mk2) I wouldn't expect a real difference in IQ (between that and the 70-200/4 and 70-200/2.8 IS II), as it is quite capable of producing excellent IQ, and your 7D will naturally eliminate the weakest edges of the image (from a mk1) anyway. In my experience using the 70-200/4, for close in work, and for portraiture style work, the difference was definitely tangible between it and the 70-200/2.8</p>

<p>Also, the mk2 is not<em> hugely</em> better (IMO) than the mk1, shooting on a crop you are pulling from the sweet spot anyway, neglecting the edges (weakest area) of the frame. I expect you'll see a marginal (at most) difference between the two. In your shoes, I'd probably go w/ the mk1, which is quite capable of stunning IQ, and easily saves you $1000+.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Were we to take a picture on the 7D of a given scene with an EF-S lens at 55mm, and another of the same scene with an EF lens at 55mm, the latter photo would appear to have been shot with a longer lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you know someone who has an EF 50mm, borrow it. Put it on your camera and take a picture. Now put your 17-55 on and set it to 50mm and take a picture. The results will be identical.</p>

<p >Anthony, I did that last night (using my EF 28-105mm and the EF-S 17-55mm) and was surprised that the scene was the same. I've done more research, which clarified nothing, but after cogitating a while, I think I have it figured out: the crop factor is merely the difference between the view seen by a full-frame sensor vs. that seen by an APS-C sensor <em>using the </em><em><strong>same</strong></em><em> lens</em>. Since I'm not using a full-frame camera at all, the crop factor is irrelevant. On my 7D, an EF lens performs the same as an EF-S lens in terms of field of view for any given focal length. The truth is in the testing.</p>

<p >Does this sound correct?</p>

<p >As to the original question, it's clear that I need to borrow, rent or steal both the 70-200/2.8 and the 70-200/4 to determine which I “need.” Thanks to you all for your insights.</p>

<p>For bird photography, you can never have a long enough lens IMHO. I use a 100-400 on a 7D and it's still not long enough. I love the combination, but always want to get closer.</p>

<p>Getting back to the 70-200, I want one but I don't shoot enough of anything,...to justify the expense.</p>