70-200mm f/4.0 L vs 70-200mm f/4.0 L

<p>Hi, I just recently purchased a Canon Rebel Xsi which comes with a kit lens which is ok, but not great. I was looking for a decent zoom lens as my first lens purchase, but am not sure which lens between the two I referenced was better suited for me.<br>

I do mostly action, nature, and macro photography, 80% outdoors/20% indoors.<br>

Which lens is better suited? Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L or Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L or Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L</p>

</blockquote>

<p>?</p>

<p>Go with the 70-200 f/4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Go with the 70-200 f/4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree, go with the 70-200f/4</p>

<p>Both are fantastic, but I lean towards the 70-200 f/4.0 L</p>

<p>I think either one would be great!</p>

<p>I would not recommend either of them.</p>

<p>If you want a really great lens, just get the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L.</p>

<p>No, no... it's the <strong>EF</strong> 70-200/4 L that you want. Don't accept anything less.</p>

<p>rofl</p>

<blockquote>

<p>70-200mm f/4.0 L vs 70-200mm f/4.0 L</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Boy, that's one of the toughest questions I've seen here in recent memory. I checked some reviews and test, and it turns out that the results are mixed. Some of the tests are very positive for the 70-200mm f/4.0 L, but when I went to other sites reviewing the 70-200mm f/4.0 L those were really positive, too.</p>

<p>I compared some lens tests - there are a number of sites on the web that provide these - and, wow, the results here are hard to figure out, too. The tests on the 70-200mm f/4.0 L really look great, but when I search on the 70-200mm f/4.0 L I find that it tests about the same.</p>

<p>In a way it comes down to what you are looking for in a lens - which is often a question of what and how you shoot. For example, if you shoot outdoor sports where you'll typically shoot at smaller apertures than f/4 and where IS won't provide much value the 70-200mm f/4.0 L is probably your best bet. On the other hand, if you are a landscape photograph who shoots from the tripod at apertures smaller than f/4 the 70-200mm f/4.0 L could be the right choice.</p>

<p>This is tough. Usually I can come up with a good reason to recommend one or the other, but here the choice is much more complex. In the end I think you'll need to do some research, think carefully about your specific shooting needs and decide for yourself whether the 70-200mm f/4.0 L or the 70-200mm f/4.0 L will be best for you.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>It appears that this is Chien Chiang's <strong>very first</strong> posting on Photo.net. I hope Conan O'Brien doesn't start out this way tonight on the Tonight Show. :p</p>

<p>If you read the label, the 70-200 f4.0L does not support outdoor photography; not without an extension tube anyway.</p>

<p>For the sake of representing the member that always gives a recommendation not asked for, i will say you should get:</p>

<p>The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 if you need AF speed.<br>

The Tokina 70-200 f2.8 is you want superb optical performance.<br>

Or the other canon 70-200 f4 L that you didn't mention!</p>

<p>Looks like an unfair comparison to me. Really an apples to oranges type of deal.</p>

<p>Chein, Canon makes four 70-200 lenses. </p>

<ul>

<li>70-200 F2.8</li>

<li>70-200 F2.8 IS</li>

<li>70-200 F4 </li>

<li>70-200 F4 IS</li>

</ul>

<p>All are regarded as having very good optics and excellent build quality. There is very little difference between them other than maximum aperture, weight, and IS (Image Stabilization). If you don't want a heavy lens, get the F4 version. The F2.8 version is heavier but opens one stop further allowing a one stop faster shutter speed and reduced depth of field. The F2.8 version costs more than the F4 version. The IS versions cost more than the equivalent none IS version. If you want to take pictures of sporting events late in the day with low light levels the F2.8 is a better choice. For landscape, nature, or sports during mid day, the F4 is a better choice. </p>

<p>The IS versions have a sensors inside that can detect vibration when the camera is hand held. The IS system then moves some of the lens elements to cancel out this vibration allowing you to hand hold the lens at a lower shutter speed that a lens without it. Without IS at 200mm you generally need a shutter speed of at least 1/320 second to get a clear picture when hand holding the camera. With IS you can get a clear shot at about 1/80 of second shutter speed. Get the IS version if you can. It is worth it in my opinion. <br>

None of the 70-200 Canon lenses have true macro capabilities. For macro work with these lenses you need extension tubes and or a close up attachment lens. My preferences is for extension tubes. Extension tubes don't have any lenses in them therefore they don't degrade the optics of the lens. </p>

<p>I have the 70-200 F4 IS lens and it is one of my favorite lenses. I do mainly landscape and nature work. I would also recommend that you use the Photo.net search function (in the upper right corner of the screen) and type in 70-200. This question comes up about once a week and the search function would find a lot of information for you to look at. </p>

<p>Steven F., thanks -- I know Chien Chiang will be helped by the kind and complete response you provided. </p>

<p>Omitted repeat (although it probably warrants a repeat).</p>

<p>I have not got either lens so should not comment but have heard of variants within, we need these enlightning threads now and again, chien what is your budget as there is not much $ diference with these lenses ? ;-]</p>

<p>Hmm.. between "a" and "a" I would choose "b". Get 2 or 3 primes, one macro and happy shooting!</p>

<p>Poor <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5182519">Chien Chiang</a> ..............where are you my friend. I have a question for you. My question is about your camera. Why did you choose Canon Rebel Xsi over Canon Rebel Xsi? If you answer this question correctly, then you will find out which lens is better for you. By the way, I would rather have Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L with IS than Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L or Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L.</p>

<p>@Dan,<br>

I'm not even a Canon guy, and you had me pissing myself lauging... LMAO.</p>

<p>Sorry Chien, the boys are having a little fun, this photography business can get a bit too serious so we all need this every now and then. Steven F. offers good advice. Whichever of these lenses you purchase you can't go wrong, I think the F4LIS is the way to go. Good luck<br>

Neill</p>

<p>What about the Nikkor 70-210 f4 with eos adapter.</p>

<p>I have the 70-200 f/4 L and as much as I like it, I often wish I'd have gotten the 70-200 f/4 L. Typical buyers remorse, the guy in the store told me the one I got was worth the extra $$, and me being pretty insecure in my decision making, decided to go with his recommendation. I'd probably prefer the reach the 70-200 would've given me but I'm stuck with the one I got now...</p>

<p>Say, anyone got any preferences on the 100-400 f/4-5.6 L versus the 100-400 f/4-5.6 L? Figured we could cover it in this thread instead of starting a new one :)</p>

<p>i have the 70-200 f/4 L and i love the lens. its smaller size compared to the other 3 variants is a great feature and it is the cheapest of the 4 variants if budget is an issue. having no IS has not been much of an issue for me since i try to shoot with a tripod whenever i can. if you do mostly daytime outdoor shots, then it is even less of an issue. it's a great first "L" lens for anyone.</p>

I'm certainly gonna check my posts twice from now on with you guys around... :>}