70-200L..Which one?

[anthony_chapa]

I am STILL debating on which one to get. I am planning on having either of the

two 70-200L, 24-70L, and the 17-40L by this summer. For now I have the 17-85IS;

it is a good copy. I am really needing some good input and maybe some examples

of the two 70-200's. Yes, I do know that one has IS which will allow for more

stops but I will be using the lens for sports where I am wanting to FREEZE the

action. But, the IS will help if I decide to use it for portraits or whatever.

Please Help Out Guys! I am looking to purchase the lens next month. :)

[KenPapai]

It is not a tough question: if you are on a budget and want lightweight you go with the F4, otherwise get the better 2.8L. By now you should know when or if you require IS. By no definitions is an F4 limited lens a portrait lens; go with the most versatile, so get the fastest lens your budget allows. This has been said a thousand times already.

[awindsor]

From the 17-85 I see that you are using a crop factor digital.

 

There are actually all 4 variations of the Canon 70-200 still around; the f2.8, f2.8 with IS, f4, and f4 with IS. The non-IS 2.8 is slightly sharper than the 2.8 IS but unless money was an issue I would go with the 2.8 IS if you need the 2.8. The f4 IS is sharper than all the others apparently so if you go with f4 it is clearly the way to go (though it is quite pricey still).

 

Personally I would not buy the 17-40/4L for a crop factor camera. You would be better off with a 10-22 for wide angle especially if you are going to add a 24-70/2.8 (not my first choice for a crop factor camera either). If you are shooting events I would go with the 17-55/2.8 IS rather than the 24-70/2.8.

 

My main portrait lenses are the 50/1.8 and the 85/1.8. The 50/1.8 is an excellent portrait lens on a crop factor digital. You get better bokeh with the 50/1.4 though. I keep the 50/1.8 because it seems to autofocus better in low light, and I do a lot of low light work.

[anthony_chapa]

By no means on a budget. I am going to be shooting sports, and NEED the 2.8. All I am wanting is some samples from some of you guys so I can compare the IQ. That is my delima

[awindsor]

If you look a couple of threads below you will see the one downside with the 70-200/2.8 is that it is heavy. I have the f4 and the weight was probably the deciding issue. I don't need f2.8 often for what I shoot and I use primes for portraits.

 

If you are shooting sport I think it is a no brainer to get the 70-200/2.8 IS. It is sharp enough and you will find the IS useful at times. Yes the 70-200/2.8 without IS is maginally sharper than the IS version but I don't think it makes a practical difference.

[anthony_chapa]

Will not be using a crop body forever, so the EF-S lenses are OUT of my mind for good. I have only bought the 17-85 because of the 40d kit, and it was cheaper to go that route. Also, for sports, I do not need the widest angle so the 17-40L is good coverage for me, as is the 24-70L.

[bob_osullivan]

I learned this the hard way. I started with the 70-200F4 non IS, then Ebayed it to get the 70-200 2.8, and ultimately Ebayed that for the 70-200 2.8 IS. Luckily I did ok on the resale and timing of rebates, so I didn't take too much of a beating.

 

You want to look at sample pics. No point in doing that. They four flavors are all comparable and lens copy variation is the biggest difference.

 

"Yes the 70-200/2.8 without IS is maginally sharper than the IS version but I don't think it makes a practical difference" Not Always! My 70-200 2.8IS is the sharpest of all of the ones I had.

 

I've found the IS is actually useful in sprots for panning a running player in Mode 2. You need a pretty slow shutter as compared to say a race car but it can be done.

 

You said "not on a budget" so get the best 70-200 2.8IS and be done with it. I wish I had from the start.

[anthony_chapa]

Thanks Bob! Exactly what I needed to hear! I like the way you think man.

[keith_lubow]

Answer the following. Record your answers.

<BR><BR>

1. Do you want f/2.8? If yes, skip question number two.<BR>

2. Do you want f/4?<BR>

3. Do you want the IS model? If yes, skip question number four.<BR>

4. Do you want the standard model?

<BR><BR>

If you answered:

<BR><BR>

1. Yes<BR>

2. <BR>

3. Yes<BR>

4. N/A

<BR><BR>

Purchase EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

<BR><BR>

If you answered

<BR><BR>

1. No<BR>

2. Yes<BR>

3. Yes<BR>

4.

<BR><BR>

Purchase EF 70-200mm f/4L IS

<BR><BR>

If you answered

<BR>

1. Yes<BR>

2.<BR>

3. No<BR>

4. Yes

<BR><BR>

Purchase EF 70-200mm f/2.8L

<BR><BR>

If you answered

<BR><BR>

1. No<BR>

2. Yes<BR>

3. No<BR>

4. Yes

<BR><BR>

Purchase EF 70-200mm f/4L

<BR><BR>

All other answers are invalid. If you have any answers other than these four, purchase nothing.<BR><BR>Keith

[paul_sauer]

I'd go IS no matter if you buy the F4 or F2.8 version because at telephoto focal lengths, why risk camera shake on a shot that would otherwise be killer?

 

To decide between the F4 and the F2.8, I personally wouldn't want to carry the weight of the 2.8 lens so the decision is easy for me.

 

For you, maybe not. You might roll up to an event in your car and not have far to carry your gear. I go on long walks and carry my stuff. So light is good in my case.

[awindsor]

The problem with the questionnaire is that he doesn't know the answer to Q3. If he did he would not have asked!

 

I don't know if I agree with Bob that all the lenses are comparable. Copy variation is an issue even with Canon L lenses and that does make single lens tests (and sample pics) less useful (unless you are testing your lens). I do agree that all lenses are sharp enough and agree with his recommendation that you go with 2.8 IS.

[awindsor]

Hmm. Not *all* lenses are sharp enough but *all the 70-200 Canon* lenses are sharp enough.

 

Regarding the 17-40/4L you need to decide what you want. It is a lousy ultrawide lens on crop factor digital for obvious reasons.

 

Personally I think you buy lenses for the camera you have rather than the camera you want. Do you buy the 17-40/4L now as a slow and short standard zoom to get a reasonable ultrawide lens on a full frame camera if and when you upgrade? You say your don't want to shoot wide so now you have a lens that works on your full frame camera but that you don't want.

[KenPapai]

"By no means on a budget. I am going to be shooting sports, and NEED the 2.8. All I am wanting is some samples from some of you guys so I can compare the IQ..."

 

What?! Are you a highly paid pro sports photog? The 70-200 2.8L is a bread & butter lens on NFL sidelines for PROS. You are worrying about IQ? LOL. If you already are a highly paid pro then you already know ten times more than me and don't even need to ask the question.

[john_bellenis]

This seems like an odd question. You have stated that you need the f2.8 - fair enough,

obviously lens speed is critical for your sports photography - then the choice is down to IS

or not IS... then you ask for samples to see a difference in IQ. There is no practical, real

world difference between the70-200 f2.8 IS and the non IS image quality, so posted

samples would be meaningless (and if not controlled, side by side comparisions between

the two lenses in question, irrelevant).

 

Whether or not IS would be useful to you is another matter. It's a one time purchase and

you can turn it off if you want, so obviously the IS version is "better" in that it can do

everything the non IS version can do and can also be used with IS! I would argue that IS

actually can be useful for sports - especially in panning mode with a slightly slower

shutter speeds. There will probaby be other situations where you will be shooting slow

moving or static subjects in low light and, if handheld, the IS can make an astonishing

difference.

 

So... it comes down to the price difference. You say you are "By no means on a budget...."

so I don't understand why the answer isn't obvious. Buy the 70-200 f2.8L IS and be done

with it - you get the faster lens you have already decided on and the choice of using IS or

not. It's a great lens on full frame or 1.6 crop, enjoy!

[gdanmitchell]

Unless you always shoot from a tripod OR always shoot at quite high shutter speeds, the IS feature is likely to be

worth the cost.

 

If you really need one extra stop and don't mind the additional cost, size, and weight then the f/2.8 IS version could

be the "best" one for you.

 

If you don't really need f/2.8 and/or find that size, weight, cost are issues then the f/4 version could be the "best"

choice.

 

Optical performance is essentially equal among all four lenses, so that should not be a deciding factor.

 

For my use I would get the f/4 IS version these days. (I own the non-IS f/4 version and it is a really fine lens.)

 

Dan

[rafael_azofeifa]

2.8 IS !

 

There is no question about it. Absolutely no question.

If you're tight on budget, just wait... wait one week, one month, six months... it is worth it.

If you're not, just go and get it today.

 

It is worth every cent and every gram of it.

 

Price?

Once you pay it, you're beyond it's only problem. It's only as expensive as you're pictures will look.

 

Weight?

It's not THAT heavy, trust me. I think it's the only negative thing found in forums because it's not as light as the other ones. But when I see this I just imagine a point-and-shooter forum saying "30d? Don't buy it, it's very heavy"

Same thing here. You WILL feel every gram of quality in your pictures.

Do you think Canon would make a heavy lense if they could make a lighter one offering the same quality? Every piece of glass inside of it has a reason.

 

Go for the 2.8, go for the IS, go for the L. Save in things like soap or gas or even food, not in glass, specially this lens.

[mendel_leisk]

I'm purely amateur, and it was a very simple process for me to settle on the 70-200 f2.8 IS:

 

It's fast, has very good IQ, and the IS is going to be important in many many shots. It costs a bit more, it's a bit heavier, so what?

[colinsouthern]

In terms of IQ, the IS version(s) will BEAT THE PANTS off the non-IS versions (on average) in any low-light situation when hand holding.

[alan_myers]

Easy answer:

 

If you budget allows and you don't mind the weight and size, get the f2.8 with I.S. That way you'll have all the options possible at your disposal.

 

If your budget doesn't allow, get the f2.8 without I.S. Lord knows, we took a lot of pictures without I.S. before Canon started installing it on lens.

 

If the size weight bothers you, say you plan to backpack around a lot with this and some other lenses, get the f4 with I.S.

 

If size/weight and budget limit you, get the f4 without I.S.

 

They are all great lenses. Stop fretting about it. Get the one that fits your budget and needs, then go shoot lots of pictures with it.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Rafael wrote:

 

<blockquote><b>No question at all!</b>

<br><br>2.8 IS !</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm positive that the f/2.8 IS lens is a fine piece of equipment, but to say "no question" is overstating things a bit.

 

<p>I use the f/4 version and I wouldn't trade it for the f/2.8 version - not because one is necessarily "better" than the other but

because <i>for the kinds of photograph I do</i> there is little advantage in having f/2.8 and significant disadvantage to the extra

bulk and weight.

 

<p>(I do a lot of landscape work, usually shoot from a tripod for this, and frequently work on foot - hiking and backpacking - where

the size/weight issues are not trivial.)

 

<p>YMMV :-)

 

<p>Dan

[john_bellenis]

I am with Dan on this one - for Anthony's stated purposes (action and sports) the f2.8 is

the obvious choice, and with there being little wieght difference between the f2.8 IS and

non IS, and with no budget issues, the 70-200 f2.8L IS is the obvious choice - for him.

 

I have the 70-200 f2.8L IS and the 70-200 f4 non IS version, and I shoot many more

images with the f4. The f2.8 is a wonderful lens, and if I am shooting in low light the extra

stop and the IS make a big difference. However, in decent light I am generally shooting at

around f5.6 or f8 with no shutter speed issues and the f4 lens is a much easier lens to

work with handheld for long periods of time. It is also much easier to put in a smaller bag

for day trips or hiking, etc. IQ is effectively identical (on paper, better with the f4 lens) so

in these situations all the f2.8 is adding to the equation is extra size and weight.

 

It can be a expensive mistake to knee jerk recommend the most expensive, most featured

option. Everything comes with compromises and for many people the f4 would suit them a

lot better.