70-200 f2.8\70-200 f4 or the primes

[quicksilver1]

I did try to post earlier too, of the choices I need to make. The

decision has just been too difficult for me.

 

Plz. don't tell me it is only me who needs to decide, cuz I know

that. I want your advise folks to help me decide better. Thanks in

advance for that :-)

 

I already have a 50mm 1.8 and 17-40 f4. I had 28-105mm too, which I

sold around 5-6 months back.

 

I know that all the 70-200 are optically sound and the primes would

be better or superior than the zooms

 

My choices :

 

70-200 f2.8 IS - OUT OF MY BUDGET AND IT'S WAY TOO HEAVY, 3.2 Pounds

or so.

 

70-200 f2.8 Non-IS - I can buy it. The only problem I feel is the

weight. Can I handle it? I have a canon Elan 7E and though I am

medium built, I don't know for sure, if I can carry it all the time,

given I do not have any telephoto coverage with any of my other

lenses.

 

70-200 f4 - It's light, less expensive, pretty good optics. But, it

is mainly a daylight lens. Limits my capabilities.

 

Prime Collection -Yakim can help me here :-) . The prime collection,

I can build is - 85mm, 135mm and 200mm - All non-L lenses, so it fits

the budget and the focal lengths. But, I have never shot earlier

changing lenses every now and then. I am a bit skeptical about doing

this all the time. Guys, mainly who go for prime lenses, how often do

you tend to change lenses, have you ever felt lost as to which focal

length to use?

 

What would I shoot? I want to mainly shoot nature, landscapes,

family, friends, sunsets, sunrises, potraits and that should take 90%

of the photos I will take with any of the lenses I want to buy.

 

Please advise,

Thanks.

Raj

[ribook]

Raj,</p>I've got some primes and some zooms. I've used an Elan 7, EOS 3 and 1N, and now a 10D. I recommend that you go for the 70-200 f/2.8 Non-IS lens. It's a fantastic lens that not only takes great photos but also provides you with a large (constant) aperture and VERSATILITY. Having primes has its merits, but for some of the things you want to shoot, you'd be changing lenses quite a bit and that's not necessarily ideal. I own the 70-200 you're looking at as well as the 200 f/2.8 prime and aside from trying out the 200 when I got it, it hasn't been on my camera. I'll find use for it eventually, but my point is that the 70-200 is so much more versatile that it's almost always the lens I choose when I'm not needing a wide angle. As for weight, I've never found it to be a problem, but then I use a monopod for at least some of my shooting.</p>Good luck with your choice. --Russ

[dogbert]

I don't own any of these lenses, but on reading your post a few random thoughts occurred to me. I doubt carrying and 85mm, 135mm and 200mm are any easier than carrying one 70-200. Second the f2.8 versus f4 is only one stop faster. That will give you about 10 minutes of extra shooting time as the sun is setting. As such the f2.8 is probably more about bokeh and one stop faster shutter speed (freezing action) than being substantially better in low light.

 

Third, family and friends (mine anyway) normally don't have a lot of patience for an over-keen photographer wanting to change lenses.

 

Landscapes, sunrises and sunsets benefit from being stopped down, and stopped down even consumer zooms will come close to primes for moderate size enlargements.

 

This leads me to think you should maybe consider getting the f4 zoom and the 85f1.8 as your specialty potrait lens.

 

If by nature you mean wildlife, 200mm is not enough.

[maureen_m]

<i>70-200 f4 - It's light, less expensive, pretty good optics.</i><p>By most accounts, it is optically equal to the f/2.8.<p><i>But, it is mainly a daylight lens.</i><p>Mainly daylight? It's only 1 stop less than the f/2.8<i>Limits my capabilities</i><p>The only limitation is a slight difference in DOF.<p>When I used an Elan 7, the f/4 lived on the camera almost full time. I made the mistake of selling the f/4 after buying a 10D (thinking the reach of a 70-200 on a 1.6x crop factor body would be unneccessary). Having proven myself wrong, I have now replaced it with another f/4.<p>If the choice were between the "f/2.8 IS" and the "f/4", I could see some limitations of the latter, but not so much from the non-IS version.<p>My vote (obviously) goes for the f/4.

[qld]

If you complaint about the way then the 70-200 f2.8 is definite not for you. I have this lens with my D60 and the grib and it is heavy. I sometime have to put it on the tripod for support. I looked at the f4 before but do not like the look of the lens and does not have f2.8 so I passed and go with the 70-200 F2.8. By the way I have same setup as yours - 50mm 1.8 and 17-40 f4, 28-105mm.

Quan

[bob_bell]

after an hour or two any camera / lens combo will start feeling heavy.

 

I have read a lot of posts regarding the 17-40, 50/1.8, and the 70-200/4 being a great combo when considering price to performance.

 

A lot of people own the F4 model around here and there are barely any complaints accept those who use it for Sports and indoor/low light conditions where the F2.8 model shines.

 

The f2.8 is very handy if you want to use th 2x TC giving you 400mm of range for nature / creatures but you have to decide if that is enough of a benefit.

 

gl

[photobyalan.com]

Raj,

 

Exactly what kind of help are you expecting? You have a decision to make. Nodbody is going to make it for you.

 

First, this exact question has been asked a hundred times in this forum and pretty much beaten to death. Search the archives. You'll spend hours reading the threads.

 

Second, you say you already own the 17-40 f/4L. Yet you characterize the 70-200 f/4 as a "daylight lens" that "limits your capabilities". Don't you think that's a little hypocritcal? Do you only use the 17-40 in daylight?

 

Primes are generally better than zooms. True enough. But, for what you are shooting, does that small difference really matter?

 

You don't want to hear it, but: IT'S YOUR DECISION.

[andrew_ito]

I have both the 70-200 f/4L and the 85mm 1.8. A year or two ago I sold my 70-200 f/

2.8L. Unless you need the extra stop for weddings or sports the f/4 version works pretty

well. For bokeh, I go straight to the 85mm f/1.8. Thats the first lens I reach for when

shooting a portrait. The f/4 version of the zoom is significantly lighter than the f/2.8

version. You will however need 67mm filters for it where you can share 77mm filters with

the f/2.8 and your 17-40L. The 70-200 f/4 & the 85mm f/1.8 gives you light weight,

speed, versatility and is reasonably priced.

[dogbert]

A $5 step down ring should save you having to buy a second set of filters.

[derek_c.]

Can we still use the hood with a step down ring?

[rokkor fan]

Hi Raj,

 

The 70-200mm f/4 is by all accounts the equal of the f/2.8 lens in terms of resolution, ccontrast etc. This should definitely be on your shopping list. The advantage of the f/2.8 is one extra stop, and improved background blur. This comes at a major cost both financially and in terms of weight.

 

The solution is to also buy the 85mm f/1.8. This lens is over one stop faster than the f/2.8 zoom, and together with the f/4 will still be less expensive than the f/2.8 lens.

 

If your budget would stretch to the IS version of the 70-200mm my advice may be different, but given your stated usage requirements this seems the best solution.

 

Regards,

 

Antony

[jbq]

Since I'm more a "multiple tools for the right job", I'll recommend a 70-200/4, a 85/1.8 and a 80-200/4.5-5.6 (I have the two zooms, looking forward to buying the 85).

[mcgarity]

To use a 77mm filter on the a 67mm lens you need a step UP ring. You would use a step down ring to mount a 67mm filter to a 77mm lens. I just found this out trying to buy one an hour ago.

 

The cheapest plastic 77mm to 67mm step up rings at B&H run around $8 if my memory isn't failing too badly. The better quality ones run just under $20.

[John Crowe]

Yakim has not shown up yet so I'll put my 2 cents worth. I like the primes for their added speed and better optical performance. If you go for the 85/1.8 and 200mm f2.8 L (yes it is an L lens) then I think the even more expensive 135mm f2 L (again) would be superfluous. It is not terribly often that you would need something between the 85 and the 200. Sometimes you may have to crop from the 85mm a little. When I had an 80-200mm zoom it was at one end or the other and rarely in the middle.

 

 

As for switching lenses, I simply do not mind. I will head out for specific reasons with specific lenses and if I have my car I will often take them all. Whether you use a zoom or not you usually visualize the composition before you put the camera to your eye anyway. Then it is a matter of fine tuning the idea or starting from scratch if you're not happy when you do use a specific lens and view through the camera.

 

If you desire the flexibility of the zoom then either of the zooms you are looking at are reported to be very good, and do not worry about not having IS. Good Luck!

[paul -]

<i> It is not terribly often that you would need something between the 85 and the 200.</i><p>Huh? Speak for yourself, John!

[pbizarro]

I would also consider the new 70-300 DO zoom lens. I am a prime lens fan myself, but I use the telezoom a lot. Why? Because I can carry it with me during weekend trekkings. The 70-200's are jst too heavy for that. The 70-200 f/4 would be a better choice if it had IS, another feature I have learned to value a lot on telezooms.

 

Also, sometimes it can so liberating and encouraging just to put one lens on the camera and go out and make photographs.

[shootme]

Also consider that if you are using digital you don?t want to be changin lenses all the time, specially outdoors because of dust on the sensor.

[panos_voudouris]

Regarding the primes, given that you have the 50, I'd say that a 50, 100 and 200 set would be better spread out than a 50, 85, 135, 200. 3 lenses will also be cheaper and lighter than 4. Or a 50, 85, 200. Personally, I have the 135/2.8SF and it is a great lens but I do not feel the need for anything longer. Otherwise I would get the 200 and sell the 135.

 

However, with the exception of the 85/1.8 the 135 and 200 are only 1 stop faster than the f/4. Generally I do not consider one stop to be significant when buying in this class (i.e. expensive and good) of lenses. So I think the 70-200/4 would be a better choice for all your needs.

 

As for when to change lenses. I have 1 zoom and 2 primes currently and will be adding another prime soon. I do not feel lost as to which length to use, each has its use as long as you realise that focal length is not for framing. There is a risk of changing lenses far too often but that you learn not to do and you also learn to get the right focal length to avoid that.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>Prime Collection -Yakim can help me here :-) </i> </p>

<p> I'll try but I really feel focal length preference is a very subjective issue. For example, I don't like the 50mm and 100mm focal lengths (on film) but I really like 35mm, 85mm, 135mm and 200mm. Other people however, like 50mm focal length so much that <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox5.htm">they have three</a>. I know you don't like to hear this but you really have to experience this yourself to know what <b>you</b> like.</p>

<p> <i>The prime collection, I can build is - 85mm, 135mm and 200mm - All non-L lenses, so it fits the budget and the focal lengths. </i> </p>

<p> To the best of my knowledge Canon does not make any 200mm non-L prime. I know of the 200/2.8 and 200/1.8, both are L lenses. </p>

<p> <i>Guys, mainly who go for prime lenses, how often do you tend to change lenses</i> </p>

<p> Not very often as I know in advance which focal length I'd want to use.</p>

<p> <i>have you ever felt lost as to which focal length to use? </i> </p>

<p> Never.</p>

<p> My opinion: I think that the 70-200/4 offers an excellent value for the money and I think you should try it. The fact that <b>I</b> felt limited by the slow aperture and that <b>I</b> felt it is not sharp enough does not necessarily mean you will experience the same. On the contrary, most of it's users are extremely happy with it. It's probably only my misfortune to be so pedant/critique. </p>

<p>Buying 85/1.8 USM + 135/2.8 SF will be cheaper than 70-200/4 but all other options (85/1.8 USM + 135/2.8 SF + 200/2.8 USM L, 85/1.8 USM + 135/2 USM L, 85/1.8 USM + 200/2.8 USM L etc.) will be more expensive. </p>

<p> <i>If by nature you mean wildlife, 200mm is not enough. </i> </p>

<p> I agree. This is the place where the 200/2.8 really shines. Put a 2X TC on it and you have 400/5.6 with AF. If you do the same with the 70-200/4 you'll lose AF on most bodies (except EOS 3 and EOS 1 series). I'd think about 300/4 IS (I have it and think that IS is indispensable in long lenses) as the minimum. </p>

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

 

<p> P.S.</p>

<p> <i>Yakim has not shown up yet .... </i> </p>

<p> What can I tell you, it's warms my heart that my opinion is so well regarded. Thanks folks.</p>

[leeuwtje]

Almost everything has been said, so I keep it short.

I choose the 135/2 for low light and bokeh and the 70-200/4 for versality. For me the best of two worlds. I love it!

 

Greetings

Leeuwtje

[danny_lee2]

Go and buy the F4 AND the F2.8 , use BOTH for a week, return the one you dont like.

[thomas_munch]

I was sold on primes, until I tried out a 70-200/4. After using a friend's with my 10D, I bought my own (like new, used) within a week. I still find it a bit large, but I know I would never want to carry around a f/2.8 zoom in this range. Also, I don't find the f/4 limiting. For landscapes, I'm using a tripod, and for candids I can always raise the ISO. I've even used the lens successfully in a darkened theater with stage lighting. In short, I like the versatility of the zoom, and again, this comes from someone who typically prefers primes. Of course, my taste for small, fast primes remains, so I will likely pick up a prime in the 85-100mm range, soon.

 

--tom

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

I understand that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is excluded due to budget considerations, but I note also that you say it is way too heavy. I'd like to be devil's advocate on that latter point for a moment.

 

I'm 5' 8" tall and 135 lbs, I am not muscular, and I am an asthmatic who suffers exercise induced bronchospasm at the drop of a hat. I am therefore averse to carrying anything very heavy. However, I carry my 70-200 f/2.8 IS almost all the time, and do not consider it too heavy. I normally attach this lens to a 10D or 1Ds. (Incidentally, the lens I have is so sharp that a 10D can not quite Nyquist sample its PSF.)

 

Though there are surely some, I've never seen anyone use the included nylon Canon lens case, which comes with a belt loop, on their belt. I do, and the lens lives there when it is not on the camera. That keeps the weight down on my hips, low to my center of gravity, and I frankly don't feel it. When it is on the camera, and I am walking or running to a shooting location, I make a triangle with my left arm (as though I were going to walk arm in arm with a woman), and tuck the lens under my elbow. Very convenient, and helps conceal that I'm running around with a very long (looking) lens.

 

When it is on the camera, and I am shooting, I find that the weight difference between the IS and non-IS model is not great, and that I can shoot at a far longer Tv with the IS than with the non-IS. Either lens would probably give me trouble if I had to hold it up for a long time; I'd probably be done in the left arm after the end of a football (American term) game. So I find the additional weight when shooting is not really an issue; the IS sometimes helps my shooting, while the weight is a long-term killer with either lens.

 

So much for my devil's advocacy for the IS version; as I said I understand the budgetary considerations, I just wanted to spout off. I'd get the f/2.8 non-IS; if you are medium build I'm pretty confident you can carry it, and I don't personally find the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 to be small. Yes, it is "only" one stop difference, but I find myself shooting in conditions where that one extra stop is necessary - or at least very helpful - quite frequently.

 

Whatever you choose, enjoy!

[oh_navi]

I own the 70-200f4L.

It's good. I prefer it over the f2.8 because of size, weight and $.

I don't believe the f2.8 can a substantial edge over f4 in low night condition in which I will use prime e.g. 85 f1.8, 100 f2 and 135 f2 instead.

If I need excellent optics such as sharpness, flare resistance, contrasty and boken etc., I will stay on a prime. I opte for the 135 f2, which is claimed to have excellent optics (3-d look?).

Hope this helps.