70-200 dilemma

[michael_monas1]

I was about to order a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens when I saw the announcement about

the IS version of the 70-200 f/4. If I save $500 and get the f/4 will I regret

it? Under what circumstances will I wish I had that extra stop of light?

[bdp]

In a darker church where you are not permitted to use Flash photo and the priest won't let you restage shots.

[stephen sullivan]

Landscapes where there is little light.

 

If you should ever want to use the 70~200 2.8L IS for photographing someone with a shallow depth of field.

 

Ask yourself how are you primarily going to use this lens. On a Tri-Pod or walk around with in hand? The 70~200 2.8L IS starts to feel a little heavy after a while in ones hand.

[susan stone]

"A little heavy", I recently bought the 70-200 f/2.8 and it's a wonderful lens but when it's on my 20D I feel like I'm packing a cannon around! The extra stop is good for those wonderful oversaturated sunset/sunrise shots that are so popular here on PN (tongue in cheek) and that I shoot all the time.

[digitmstr]

The difference in price is more like $400.00 USD but, only YOU can decide whether the extra stop of light is useful to you or not.

 

I am sure you know what a stop is and what difference can it make under low-light circumstances :)

 

Having gone from the f/4 to the f/2.8 version I can say this:

 

If you do mostly studio work and/or outdoor, daylight work get the older f/4 version.

 

If you do low-light/indoor shoots get the faster version. The IS will only help with camera shake NOT with motion blur due to subject movement. So, the EXTRA stop can really, really make the difference. There is only so much light that can be squeezed by pushing the ISO.

[rob - atlanta, ga usa]

The extra stop will help if you use teleconverters very often.

[vorlandphotography]

I've owned both the f/4 (pre-IS, of course) and 2.8. So far as I am concerned, the 2.8 is a mystical and strange and wonderful piece of gear. I don't understand the optics involved here, but, at least in my case, the 2.8 is vastly superior.

[jim_doty]

Michael,

 

Any time you would shoot at f/5.6 or smaller, it won't matter much, assuming equal image quality.

 

In low light on a tripod with a non-moving subject, it won't matter either.

 

Hand held in low light, any time you wish you had f/2.8 and need a given shutter speed, it means ISO 800 instead of ISO 400 (with the faster lens), or ISO 1600 instead of ISO 800. Compensating with a one stop increase in ISO may or may not be a big deal for you.

 

Bob makes a good point about teleconverters.

 

Jim

[john_schwaller]

I have not seen detail tests on the new f/4.0 IS. Assuming it is similar to the non-IS, both the f/2.8 and f/4.0 IS lenses should perform great.

 

At B&H, the best prices for each are:

 

70-200 f/4.0 IS $1249

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=457678&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

 

70-200 f/2.8 IS $1599.95

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=449226&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

 

Less $50/100 rebate on 2.8 IS

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/Promotions/CIWC_Form_Oct06.pdf

 

This kind of narrows the price gap.

 

You then need to decide on the size, weight and max. aperture differences.

 

I can only share the experience of 3 of my friend who started with the f/4.0 (non-IS, of course) and all 3 now own 2.8 IS. Frankly, the size and weight differences are not that great....get a good strap such as the Op/tech Pro-loop...it helps a lot.

 

John

[geoffs1]

I can't count how many of my colleagues have switched to the f/2.8 (or started out with it). I don't have one personally, but it's the next big item on my wish-list. The 70-200mm range is truly a sweet-spot in the focal-length range for so many things.

 

My vote: if you can swing it finacially, go for the f/2.8.

 

One place that the extra-stop also comes in handy is for better auto-focus speed.

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

[tommyinca]

You will only regret it when your ISO say 1600 and shutter speed say 1/125 in an indoor sport event. For the rest, your back and shoulder won't miss it and thank you for it. You will also regret it big time when sport illustrate ask you to do the swim suit edition.

[istvan_sandor]

I never had the IS version of either lens, however you may find my post useful as it can be eqally relevant to the IS and non-IS versions.

You should really consider in what situations you are going to use it mostly. I used to have the 2,8 (non-IS)version and I LOVED it. I thought I would never sell it as its optical performance was incredible. But, and here is the big BUT (at least for me)I started to realize that I grabbed for it less and less often (I do a lot of outing) due to its weight.

So, I tested and bought the f4.0 version and man....what a quality.

It is razor sharp from f4-11 and from 70-200. Color rendition and saturation is also unbelievable. I even tend to think that it is even better than my good old 2,8. It takes the 1,4 converter very easily, practically without any negative impact on optical quality.

Certainly, it is not a low light lens and not a portrait lens (however if you are not an artist, it is more than OK for portraits).

So, what I did was that I bought a 200mm/2.8 prime for tight portraits and low light and I still have some money left from what I got from selling the 2,8 zoom.

I fullheartedly recommend you to consider this option (f4 zoom + 200 prime). If you do not insist on IS (which does not "stabilize" subject movement) you can even buy one or maybe even 2 more (e.g. 85 and/or 100 very fast prime) out of the price of a 2,8 IS zoom. (So, 3 or 4 absolutely top lenses out of the money saved for one zoom)

Hope this helps, regards, Istvan

[carl_weller]

You might want to ask yourself one more question:

 

"If I get the f2.8 instead of the f4, how many times will I wish I had a smaller, lighter

lense?"

 

That extra stop will not just cost you $500, it will cost you in the size and weight of your

kit bag.

 

Are there really going to be that many times when you can't crank the ISO to gain one

stop?

 

good luck,

[bob_king2]

Everything in photography is a compromise. I got the f/2.8 IS version so I could use the lens in lower light situations (f/2.8) and hand hold it (IS), ie more flexible lens. The compromise was size, weight and cost. My son has the f/4 non IS version. An excellent lens that is light and relatively inexpensive. The compromise is hand holdability and low light performance. I guess the f/4 IS version is somewhere between with its own set of compromises. BTW I'm looking at getting a new compact digicam to complement by SLR as the SLR is big and heavy to carry around everywhere even though it has excellent image quality.

Cheers, Bob

[iansky]

The other critical factor that no-one has mentioned is - the f2.8 allows you to use a 2xconverter on almost any of the current Canon digital SLR's, but, the f4 will not as autofocus will not work above f5.6.

 

So, if you want a fast lens that you can use a converter on go for the f2.8. If you do not need anything above 200mm then stick with the f4 (I recently traded up to f2.8 to use a converter for airshows). The f4 is a superb lens with great optics that produces outstanding photos, but it will only allow you to use it as is.

[charles_van_sistine]

"The other critical factor that no-one has mentioned is - the f2.8 allows you to use a 2xconverter on almost any of the current Canon digital SLR's, but, the f4 will not as autofocus will not work above f5.6."

 

Beg to differ. While you lose Autofocus, you CAN use the 2xconverter on the f4. You just have to manually focus it. Which isn't an issue since you'd most lilely be using a tripod for such a lens combination. so while you retain autofocus at large F-stops with the 2.8, you'll lose it for most shots with either lens.

 

If you hand-hold and carry your kit alot, get the f4. If you use a tripod allot and need an extra f-stop frequently, get the 2.8.

[m_barbu1]

A lot of the specific points have already been mentioned, so I'll add something a little different. Personally, I've never wished I'd spent less on a particular item by getting a version that had less capability. This is true of anything technological.

 

So, ask yourself if you know you can "reign in" the techno-lust, for lack of a better term. If you have the money, I can't think of a scenario where you will wish you had the f/4 lens instead.

 

True, it's bigger, and heavier, but the human body is a remarkable thing. Given extra weight to carry, it will build itself up to be able to handle said weight. Initially, it might be cumbersome, but the more you use it, the stronger you will become, and the less weight will be an issue.

[sudheer_m]

You did not mention the other lenses you have. Because that is a very critical to what you get.

 

Advantage of 70-200 f4 is lower weight, smaller size

 

advantage of 70-200 f 2.8 IS -- is better in low light.

 

if u have a fast prime like 85mm f1.8 with u already get the f4 with IS -- actually 85mm f1.8 plus 70-200f4 IS is almost same cost as the 2.8 IS

 

if you are not used to carrying heavy lenses -- then also get the f4IS

 

if are a professional who makes money with photos, or need a one lens solution get the 2.8 IS.

[john_schwaller]

"...Beg to differ. While you lose Autofocus, you CAN use the 2xconverter on the f4. You just have to manually focus it. Which isn't an issue since you'd most lilely be using a tripod for such a lens combination. so C..."

 

I beg to differ. I believe we are talking about IS on these lenses. I find it very easy to hand hold at 400mm with either the 100-400 or 70-200 2.8 IS w/ 2x TC.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "...so while you retain autofocus at large F-stops with the 2.8, you'll lose it for most shots with either lens..."

 

John

[jon_austin]

I bought a 70-200/4 three years ago, and ever since I bought my first IS lens a year ago (24-105), I waited and wished and hoped for a 70-200/4 IS, despite some not insignificant ridicule and naysaying on this forum.

 

When the f/4 IS was finally announced, at more than double the price of the non-IS version, I began to consider the f/2.8 IS version very seriously. (And this from a person who avoided the 24-70, due to its size and weight.)

 

When it dawned on me that the price delta between the f/4 and f/2.8 IS versions was only $450 (more like $350 when you consider the value of the tripod collar included on the f/2.8 and not the f/4), I quickly decided to buy the f/2.8 version.

 

Yeah, it's big and heavy, but it produces awesome images. While this is my least used FL range (the 24-105 spends more time on my 20D than any other lens), I encountered plenty of situations with the f/4 where I wished I had IS.

 

If I did enough work in this FL range in well-lit remote locations (think hiking or long carries), I'd have kept my f/4, due to its light weight and excellent image quality. Instead, I sold it to a very talented up-and-coming photographer, so it'll actually be put to use, rather than collecting dust in my closet.

[ben_terlou]

Michael,

 

There is a very slight difference between the f2.8 and f4 lenses, for some completely insignificant, for others (like me), the decisive factor in choosing the f2.8 version. Which is the shine, glow, magic, or brightness some say rather flatly, of it. In terms of sharpness there is no discernible difference, and it is definitely not in all pictures that you see the noted difference, but in some there clearly is. It's the same as you find in other similar lenses, like the 85mm 1.2 and 1.8, the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8, and by the way also the 16-35mm and the 17-40mm. I pesonally think that this small visual difference is what defines the magic of the 2.8 version of the 70-200mm. So regardless of the IS (why not, if you can afford it), I would advise you to try both lenses, take a careful look, and decide on what you appreciate. It is as with music, it very much depends on sensitivity and tast.

 

Best regards, Ben

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>There is a very slight difference between the f2.8 and f4 lenses</i></p>Slight? Maybe if you're shooting stationary objects, and using a tripod. <p>The one stop of difference means that all other things being equal, if a shot at f/4 required ISO 1600, you'd be able to take the same shot at ISO 800 at f/2.8 (this scales by whole stops). You're going to gain an appreciable increase in color, saturation, contrast, and appreciable decrease in noise level at ISO 800 (compared to 1600) on a 20D.</p><p>Likewise, all other things being equal, if you were capable of photographing something with an exposure of 1/250 sec at f/4, opening the aperture to f/2.8 would enable you to capture the photo at 1/500 sec (this scales by whole stops, too... 1/125 sec at f/4 would give you the same light as 1/250 sec at f/2.8).</p>

[john_niemczura]

If you have any need at all for low light, especially any indoor sports (soccer, basketball), go for the 2.8. After I bought the 2.8, two friends went for the 4.0 due to the price, both returned them for the 2.8. One amazing piece of glass.

[digitmstr]

>>at more than double the price of the non-IS version, I began to consider the f/2.8 IS version very seriously.<<

 

Exactly as I had predicted most people would. To me, makes no sense to buy the IS version of 70-200 f/4L. The original is a great lens as it is and the attraction was the superb performance at a comfortable size and (uneblievably low) price point.

 

At double the price it is NOT worth it, IMO. Be that as it may, I bought the 70-200 f/2.8L IS because I do a lot of available light portraits and I *needed* the extra stop AND the IS system desperately.

[yakim_peled1]

Another benefit which was significant to me is that f/2.8 allows you shallower DoF and blurs the background much more than a f/4 lens. So, I got myself a nice used 70-200/2.8 IS for 1450$. No regrets.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.