mark_hall2 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Hope someone can help me choose! I'm in the market for a 70-200L lens and, having read so many excellent reviews of both the f2.8 (non-IS) and f4 versions, I just can't make up my mind. I can buy a used f2.8 for little more than a new (hard to find used in the UK) f4. I'll be using it for live music (preferably without flash), portraits and some landscape work, so should I 'bite the bullet' and go for the f2.8? I guess it might just come down to weight as the cost is so close. Got to decide soon as the itch is getting worse! Thanks in advance for your advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_doan Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I have the F4 L, and there are lots of times I wish I had that extra stop. That being said, the weight is a big compromise. I've had to carry around two cameras, lenses, film, flash, filters, and it gets to be quite a load. The 2lb difference between the 4L and the 2.8L is a huge one when you are carrying your gear around for hours at a time. However, that is the *only* time I see the 4L and being better than the 2.8L. That extra stop on the 2.8L is the difference between getting a shot and not. And, that is the biggest advantage to it. For the same price, I would suck it up and carry around the extra 2lbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eosbob Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Get the 2.8! The weight is soon forgotten when you review your slides and see the incredible images you are able to make. If the weight is an issue get a good belt system to take the load or your neck and or shoulder. See Kinesisgear.com for possibilities. I regularly carry a 1VHS, 17-35 2.8L, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8L, and 300 2.8L IS, clearly weight is not an issue to me. Image quality is very rewarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruffstep_. Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 70-200L hard to find in england? they sell them at dixons!! link below Jessops on the net they are hardly contraband... Heavy lenses are such a pain in the ass - carying my 100-400 round all day is a very character building experience. Another vote for the F4. http://www.dixons.co.uk/store/martprd.dll/store/dix_page.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0738593077.1048190851@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadchlehigfecefecfgmdffgdghn.0&page=Product&sku=185074&category_oid=-10638 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Hard to find *used* I think he said... though I've seen 2 or 3 in the back of 'amateur photographer' recently, about £500-£550. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_david Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 For both portraits and concerts, the f2.8 is definitely preferable. Get the f2.8 version unless you plan to walk for miles in pursuit of landscapes and the extra weight would really bother you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_hum Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Here's a thought: For the cost of the 70-200/2.8L, you may be able to get the 70-200/4L (for the landscape work and portraits) *and* something like a 85/1.8 or 100/2 (for the live music). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canon man Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I got the 2.8 version and honestly after the first day I quit noticing the weght. Of course you don't cary this lens around you neck, but In the cloudy grey days of an Oregon winter It gets me shots that I otherwise would not get. I bought mine used here at the classifieds for $800. I feel the extar few hundred over the F4 version was well woth it. I have some shots that I otherwise would not have gotten. Go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael obrien Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I went through the same decision process. The image quality is exactly the same, so it comes down to one f/stop, and two extra pounds. I primarily do outdoor stuff with a tripod, so the extra f/stop wasn't worth the extra money. But if I were doing weddings or other low-light stuff, I may spring for a 2.8. I just picked up a 2.8 lens this weekend and was amazed at how heavy it seemed compared to my f/4. This is not an inconsequential weight. I hope this is helpful. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_baker4 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I was having the same problems in deciding as you, I considered all the similar options. I tend to cover a lot of conferences and require the ability to move quickly and cover all the action. My big difference I suppose is that I do not have any constraints on using flash. Which ever way you go, could I suggest hiring one for a couple of days before you decide � most places are quite happy to do this with the better equipment, especially if they know you are really keen. Many of the mail order places will also give you a couple of weeks to make up your mind up, the people I use allow for a two weeks return policy. After spending month agonising and eventually taking the plunge (f2.8), I then found that in practice that the 70-200 proved to be a little too limiting in length. I read all the reviews of using with a 1.4 or 2 x � however, when I tried using the combination in anger, I found that I was missing and really needed the mid-end as well � I don�t like using multiple bodies and that was not really the solution I was looking for. After a lot of looking, I ended up taking my pride and joy back, eventually I found what I was really after, a second-hand 35-350 L � I know it is only an f 3.5 dropping to f5.6 � but it is still an L with the ability to go from a wide audience shot, to zoom in on a close up, all in one lens. The weight is an issue, but I tend to have the whole thing set on a stout monopod, I can then use it all day with out it being a problem. I also found that I have been leaving nearly all my other lenses at home! It also has a cracking close-up facility at the 135mm point. I carry all the kit in a Lowepro Mini Trekker backpack, which really spreads the load � I may miss the odd shoot, as the kit is tucked away, but at least I have it with me!! Results have been stunning, so much better than I was expecting � possibly not to the standard of the 2.8. If you dig around you will see some very diverse comments on this glass, this is a lens people either loath or love � having used one now for a couple of months, it is turning out to be my perfect lens, consistently giving me excellent results. The other glass to consider is the older 80-200 L f2.8 � many reviewers have rated this above both of the newer incarnations � I missed a pristine one of those with all the bits (hood, tripod collar & bag) going for £499. The only real downside with this lens is the inability to use Canon converters, it will also not do the FTM focusing � but that was less of an issue for me. Suggest you give Mifsuds in Brixham a try � I was really tempted by an immaculate second-hand f4 at under £500 � however, they have a vast amount of kit, which is constantly changing� http://www.mifsuds.com/shpricepage.htm They also have them new at £659 http://www.mifsuds.com/pricepage.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajud Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I needed the extra stop for low light photography and hence I went for 2.8 version. I am not a strong/muscular person, but weight of the lens has not been a problem for me and I handhold it most of the time (when light is good, i.e. :-). You may already know this, you will have to pay for the tripod collar seperately if you buy f/4 version. Something to consider.rately if you buy f/4 lens. -Raju Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canon man Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Seriously, after you have it a day you wont notice the weight anymore. I shoot with it at leats 70% of the time. I have a heavily damaged lower back, and neck. Its not that bad. The extra stop is more than worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peza Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 If you buy f/4 version, be prepared to buy some prime (85/1.8 or 100/2.0 or 135/2.0) to complement it with their speed. Performance goes with weight (and price) lineary here.<br> I have 2.8 version and rarely was wishing f/4 version. If I need to go light and superfast, I go with 85/1.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guto alperstedt Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I second 2.8L. In time: I bought in a couple of weeks the lowprofile Lowepro Linx 320 backpack: discreet, light and cheap. I can put 28~70/2.8L, 70~200/2.8L, 540EZ and a EOS1n body w/ battery pack between then, and you have space for a jacket... Is it hard to belive, hum? And more: with any photo vest to put filters and some film, it's great to carry around. Perfect when you're traveling. I'm impressed here. Very impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_craig Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Get the f4. Lower weight and just as good quality. What do you give up: 1. First of all if you're talking about nighttime or indoor concerts, the f2.8 still may well not get you the shot without a flash (is lighting sufficient for 1/100-1/180 at 2.8?. You may want to test meter some concerts to see if the f2.8 advantage will exist. If outdoor daylight concerts, the f4 should be fine. 2. Landscapes... if taking the traditional route, you'll be on a tripod anyway with a small fstop. 3. Portraits... the 2.8 minimizes DOF, so you might miss this. If indoor flashed/studio portraits though, the speed advantage wouldn't be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 It's a hard call in this case. Used ones do appear occasionally, and go for around £450 or so. I bought the F4L, because I have no need of the extra stop and I have a 300 F4L IS also, so more than enough weight, thankyou. Daniel says you don't notice the weight after a while... well, in a way this may be true. I don't have a problem carrying around my 300 F4L IS all day and it's a similar weight to the 70-200 f2.8L. However, as soon as I add other lenses, it can easily become a problem, and I suspect the magnitude of the problem is affected by your own physical characteristics. Since I'm a very small, light person it's very noticeable how the weight adds up, and if I'm out all day in a city (I did this in sydney for example), then I'll not bother with the 300 F4L IS, instead using the 1.4X TC with the 70-200 F4L when I need the reach, and carry my wide lenses. Even then, after 8 or so hours walking around with this kit, it's more than enough, and the F2.8L would certainly NOT be a welcome addition in such a situation. Of course, where you need the extra stop, you need it and there's no avoiding that. However, I'd look into a different path. For the same money you can get a 135 F2L, and save a little to add the 1.4X TC at a later date. The optics of the 135 F2L are incredible, the weight is similar to the 70-200 F4L AND you gain a stop over the much heftier 70-200 F2.8L. Also a superb portrait length with great bokeh and the extra stop will help with the live music. With a 1.4X TC and 85 F1.8 you're at virtually the same weight as the 70-200 F2.8L and with faster apertures and higher optical quality throughout the range. You also have the flexibility to take what you need and leave what you don't, but of course you lose the flexibility of the zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_fedorov Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I went through a similar torture about 9 month ago - and at that time I chose to get f4 version... than over time I realized that I almost never used it, even though I almost always had it with me... That lens does require good light even on a overcast day I had problems with that lens (90% of my shots are handheld). about 2 month ago I took a plunge and bought a refurbished f/2.8 IS - even at 3 times a price it is worth it. That lens will get me a sharp picture at 1/15 at 200 without a problem. For your use I would strongly recommend the IS version if at all possible, if not I would think about a primes(135/f2 is amazing). I am a fairly strong person (do a lot of hiking/climbing some ice climbing) and I do feel this lens in the bag(feels fine on the camera).On the other hand I do feel that the weight of this lens does help to hold it more steady and reduces camera shake. Also I did not like how f4 balanced on my camera(d30 with battery grip). Do remeber the most expensive shirt is the one you wear only once :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmijo Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 This appears to be a common dilemma. I spent a month deciding between the 2.8L the 4L and the 2.8L IS. I ultimately went with the 2.8L IS and it's now my favorite lens. The A full stop faster and the ability to use slower shutter speeds handheld makes a world of difference. I know the tests say it isn't as sharp, but the IS more than makes up for it IMHO if you're shooting indoors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_lipton Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 I have the 4L...I went through the same process...which lens? I use my 4L for portraits and it's a pleasure to carry. The pictures are wonderful..I shot a wedding in Hawaii with it almost exclusively and the other "Pro" on scene used a Pentax medium format cam...The bride chose my pictures over the medium format because of the bokaw and overall quality...I don't see where 2.8 over 4 is a great advantage unless you shoot in low light conditions...but the size and weight advantage meant alot to me.. just another opinion.. good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 I had the f/4 but quickly found that f/4 at 200mm is often not enough. I sold it and going to get the 2.8 IS. To add to your confusion :-))) have you considered the 200/2.8 prime ? Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Live music indoors without a flash is pretty tough. The f/4 is definitely not enough. The f/2.8 zoom can be used at iso 1600 but things only start to look good with f/2 and f/1.4 primes. I would get a 50/1.4 and 100/2 for that if you're serious about it. For portraits, these are also excellent. The f/2.8 zoom would be very good for outdoor concerts though. It would be interesting to hear from people who have used the 70-200 IS to photograph indoor music events. Does it help? Flare? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peters_vecrumba Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 If you do inside non-flash, then you need the 2.8 (and a monopod, you'll get tired holding it after a while...). Outside, the f/4.0 will do, although even at early dusk with 400 film f/4.0 max it gets a bit dicey hand-holding in shadow. I got the 2.8 and eventually got the 4.0 as well (got tired of lugging the weight...) In sharpness, they're about equal. Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_von_wahlde Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 I bought the f4. I shoot primarily on the water and outside, so the extra stop meant pretty much nothing. Needing that extra stop is the ONLY reason to consider the 2.8. Well, that and the stupid filter size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now