Getting a Canon 70-200/4 dilemma

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Agree with most of the above, plus, the L lens retains its value, much more so then the non L lens. I don't have the lens now, sold it when I bought the 70-200L 2.8, but that was my favorite lens.</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Robert,<br>

I'm right there with you on being one of the poorer photographers to grace these pages. As I couldn't swing even the 70-300 IS, I went with the 55-250 IS. For me, any upgrade would have to be the IS version of the 70-200.<br>

As others have suggested, you may want to stick with the 70-300 IS and look at another lens option to expand your creative options. I'm personally looking to expand in the area of macro, but that's what floats my boat.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have the 100-400 IS and a 70-200 2.8 non IS that is 12 years old. Actually there was no IS for it when I bought it. I have done sports, weddings, general newspaper work, portraits, PR and whatever you can name with the 70-200. The 100-400 has a tracking feature on the IS that I never use. I shoot sports, namely, swimming with both the 70-200 and the 100-400. I think the 70-200 has better IQ than the 100-400 although not so's you'd notice it on most pictures. I only use the 100-400 in good light or on a tripod or when I can get fast shutter speed for birds etc. I habitually still use the 70-200 much more than the 100-400. It is better in low light. Both lenses weigh about the same. IS generally, except maybe the tracking feature, does not work well for sports or on a tripod with earlier IS like the 100-400. Without question or reservation, I think the 70-200 f4 along with the EF 17-40 it is the best buy possible in Canon lenses. I wish I had one because my 2.8 weighs three pounds and I can't use a monopod on a crowded pool deck. As in football games without a monopod I get very arm weary. My 70-200 despite mud, rain, and a very heavy drop on concrete still looks and operates the same as when I bought it. I had one of the early 75-300s with IS in the mid nineties and got rid of it. You did not say what body you are using but I assume it is a 1.6 crop. I shot sports on full frame film and got press usable pictures at the 200 focal length for several years. I have used it on both 1.6 and full frame crop in digital. It is still going strong. I would recommend you buy the non-IS. I have lived without IS for a long time and although I have it on the 100-400 and use it sometimes it is usually off except for still objects in low light. </p>

[adamczyk]

<p>You don't need the IS unless you are handholding every single shot. And even then the IS is heavier than the non-IS so after few hours your hands will shake a bit. I have the non-IS f4 with a 40D and love it. It is the sharpest lens that I have, and it is pretty light considering the size of it. Auto-focus is fast, super-fast. I was shooting with the 2.8L IS version, and its heavy, seemed 3 times the weight of the f4 and the image quality did not surpass the f4 non-IS. Even with the IS on, it is very hard to hand hold the f2.8 for me so I naturaly go to the f4 non-IS. I guess it a personal preference, you should go to a camera store or to a friend, mount one on you camera and shoot few photos and see. The price of the 70-300 and and good used 70-200 f4 is about the same so in the worst case, sell the 70-200 and re-buy the 70-300 again. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Robert, I was recently in a "dilemma" similar to yours while diliberating which of the four current EF 70-200 zooms I would get to replace my excellent but aged 80-200/2.8 L. I decided on the 70-200/4 IS because I do find IS to be very useful in the telephoto range for the kind of photography I do (still or slow moving subjects), it is much lighter and more compact than the f/2.8 versions, and it is reportedly the sharpest of the four (since, apparently, the optical formulae of the IS and non-IS versions are different).</p>

<p>I sold my 80-200/2.8 to help finance a (barely) used copy of the 70-200/4 IS, having to shell out only CDN$400 to do so. And I couldn't be happier. Since I often shoot candid portraiture in less-than-optimal light for f/4, I'm able to get shots that I simply wouldn't be able to get without IS. And, contrary to what some have claimed on this forum, I find the zoom's bokeh to be quite pleasing. </p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Well........as is often the case, no suggestions are turning out to be unanimous. They all make good sense to me.<br>

Did I ever mention that if I were to purchase a 70-200 lens 1) I'd have to sell my current 70-300IS USM to do so, and 2) it would have to be for the f4 NON-IS version-no other version. <br>

I have been following this thread religiously, and have found it most interesting. But sooooo many good solutions, but only one can really be made. A) keep the 70-300IS USM, or B) sell that lens and look for a 70-200/4 non-IS, or C) go some completely other direction to broaden my photo experiences(I'd still need to sell the tele, though). For what it's worth, my current lens quartet amounts to: Canon 18-55IS, 50 1.8, Tamron 28-75 2.8, and Canon 70-300IS USM. All in all, not great, but not bad considering the funds that I have to deal with. Canon XS camera.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I am a big fan of the Tamron 28-75. I used that lens exclusively for years.<br>

<br /> I really think you would benefit most from a prime but selling the 70-300 for the 200 L is not a bad idea. I have the 2.8 (non IS ) version and I promise you will be spoiled by the fact that it does not extend out of the barrel, how fast it focuses and just how sharp it is. I believe the 70-200 f4 also uses the same filter threat as the tamron.<br>

<br /> In the end you will almost break even so maybe you can still get that 85 :-}</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Here is typical capture quality of the 70-200 for me. 40d, raw, No PS, no LR output sharpening. Default LR raw sharpening of 25, 1/2000th at f4, ISO 320, 126mm</p><div></div>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>Your IQ won't be any better with the 70-200 vs the 70-300. It'll be different but not better. The 70-200 is a bit warmer. I've compared shots from both side by side as I used to own both. Either and/or both could be color adjusted in post.</p>

<p>IS is important in longer lenses. The slight movement of a subject far away is small issue. The movement of the camera by you, has a huge impact. </p>

<p>Both lenses are equally sharp. For me the big difference is the build. I use polarizers a lot and the rotating front element of the 70-300 was an issue. If you don't use polarizers, and are happy with your results I see no reason to change. Changing to the non - IS version I think would be a downgrade. </p>

<p>Do nothing until you can afford the IS version.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>What are you basing that on? It's not what lab testing shows. The 70-200 has 1 fluorite and 2 UD elements, and the 70-300 has no notable optical elements. Charts show superiority almost across the board, not by Earth-shattering margins, but I question whether one can say they're equal based on personal evaluation.</p>

[pc_sh]

<p>Something that has been largely overlooked above (only 1 reference), but how about 3rd party manufacturers. Both Sigma and Tamron make a 70-200 2.8f with their own version of IS, for about the price of a Canon 70-200 f4 non-IS. Plenty of reviews available, so see which one would be a better fit for you.</p>

[chuck_parr]

<p>I too am one of the "poorer" photographers. I have used the 70-200 f4 non-IS for 6 years (having upgraded from the 70-300 IS), primarily for outdoor soccer and baseball pictures, as well as capturing other outdoor fairs, and events. Only rarely have I felt I was missing a shot because I had no IS, although I will admit at a few professional hockey games it would have useful to have f2.8 rather than f 4. It is the lens I use 60% of the time and is the best investment I have made. This past year I thought of upgrading to the f2.8 and concluded for me (as a hobbyist) that I couldn't justify the cost of the f2.8 non-IS much less the IS. If my income depending on it, that would be a different story. I say get the non-IS if that is your budget, use the heck out of it and if someday you want to upgrade to the IS and/or the f2.8, you'll still be able to sell the L glass at a good price and apply that toward your upgraded lens.</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>Hi Robert. If I were you I would keep the 70-300IS and forget about the 70-200F4 until finances improve. The 70-300IS isn't a bad lens, and makes up in versatility what the F4 has in quality. My lens progression went from 70-300 old Tamron to 70-200 EX Sigma which I still have, to a 85mm 1.8 which I still have and love dearly and then on to a 100-400L. I guess I've spent $2,500 and I'm still, for most shots I take, within the gamut of that 70-300IS. You can spend a lot of money chasing "IQ" for not much gain. Unless you have a clear reason to need that 70-200F4 I'd stay with what I had, at least until those finances improve. Sure that 70-200F4 is a beautiful piece of gear, but it's not essential.<br>

Neill</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Probably the best advice, Neill. I hope I take it. Thanks. Bob</p>