Canon 70-200M L lenses 2.8 vs. f/4

[jukas]

I'm looking to make the jump into a L lens and for the immediate future the 70-200M seems like the best inital buy (I can only buy so much camara gear, before the GF complains about lack of jewelry :shock: )

What I'm looking for is feedback from those who have the 2.8 as well as the F/4 version. As of now I could buy the F/4 version today, I would probably have to wait 6 months to buy the 2.8 version, and if I wanted the 2.8 IS L well that's probably 10 - 12 months away.

Most of my images are done above the 2.8 range, of wildlife, and I take several trips each year to the southwest photographic rattlesnakes, the bloom and other desert fauna. Needless to say, lack of light isn't usually an issue there, and most of the time it's working around harsh lighting conditions where I wouldn't be using such a wide open f-stop as 2.8.

I guess what I'm getting down to is for those of you with the 2.8 L do you find yourself using that f-stop range frequently enough to justify the $500 extra price tag? Is the image quality even at high f-stops that much more stunning? If I get the F4 will I end up kicking myself that I didn't wait and buy the 2.8? I have a 50 1.8 Prime for when I want to do candids, and a non L 70 - 300 IS already.

Basically I'm looking for the most bang for my buck, and I don't want to shell out double the $ unless I'm going to see a marked benefit!

Ty in advance

[CyberDyneSystems]

Moved to the "EOS" forum.. (how often does that happen? )

Image quality wise I don't think you'll miss a thing by going with the f/4

The f/2.8 will add these things.

1. The obvious.. better low light performance.

2. Shorter DOF

3. The ability to use more teleconverters.

4. A LOT of weight.

[mjordan]

Jesse, I have both the 70-200 4.0L and 70-200 2.8L IS. Quality wise, I find them both excellent lenses. Weight wise, as CDS said, the 2.8L IS is a lot heavier than the 4.0L. I had the 4.0L about 9 months before I got the 2.8L and in that time I did a lot of shooting outdoors with it. There were times I wish it were faster, but for the most part, I had no problems with it outdoors. Indoors was a different story, which is why I moved up to the 2.8L. I do a lot of indoor arena, barn and convention center type shoots and the light just isn't that great most of the time.

Now if I was going to be shooting rattlers, I'd want to use my 100-400 4.5/5.6L IS with both the 2.0x and 1.4x converters on it. :lol:

The one time in my life I picked up a rattler when pulling weeds was enough for me.

Mike

[drisley]

If you are looking for bang for the buck, and dont mind losing zoom, perhaps look at a prime lens.
I have the 135F2L, which is one of the sharpest lenses Canon has ever made (maybe even THE sharpest). Combined with the 1.4x extender, you have a 190mm F2.8 lens that is probably still even sharper than the 70-200 zooms (I find it's sharper than the 70-200F4L I used to have).
This gives you an awesome low light combination that is relatively small, light, and black!
This is my favourite lens/combination I've ever used, by far!

Also, you could get the 200F2.8L lens. This lens is also SUPER sharp, affordable, small, light, and again it's black (I prefer over the white zooms).
The price is about the same as the 70-200F4L zoom.

These pictures were taken with the 135F2L and EF 1.4 Extender and is typical of the sharpness, colour, contrast, and bokeh of this combo.

189mm F2.8
http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/zoo/CRW_2550.jpg
189mm F2.8
http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/dragon_boats/CRW_2634.jpg

[roppelt]

I was having the same delema and have decided to go with the f/4 wl I would like the 2.8 the weight factor has decided me.

[defordphoto]

Removed by RFMSports

[sGu]

i have 70-200mm 2.8 IS and used my friend's 70-200mm f4, quality wise they both brilliant, but when you mentioned wildlife and rattlesnake, the ideal lens pops up is 400mm 2.8 IS, i'm now totally in love with it, even though i have to return it tomorrow, still i would love to own one of those.

rent one for the trip, and stay away from those deadly snakes :!:

with 70-200 and 400, those two will be my ultimate workhorse :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

The title did not mention the IS f/2.8....

[ijohnson]

I struggled with the same decision for a long time before settling on the 2.8 non-is. I laugh at the decision now because I shoot at 2.8 a lot and find myself needing it constantly. An entire stop of light is a big deal for anyone. So unless you only intend to shoot between 10am and 3 in the afternoon, you might want to wait. The 2.8 is heavier but its not ridiculous. Don't let weight deter you unless you are very old and weak. When I saw both lenses I thought that the f4 was too small.

On the other hand, I hate waiting. It would drive me crazy to have to wait 6 months for a lens that nice. You will see 2,000 pictures on the next 6 months that you wish you had nice glass for.

I am glad that I could be of no help whatsoever.

[DocFrankenstein]

I struggled with the same decision for a long time before settling on the 2.8 non-is. I laugh at the decision now because I shoot at 2.8 a lot and find myself needing it constantly. An entire stop of light is a big deal for anyone. So unless you only intend to shoot between 10am and 3 in the afternoon, you might want to wait. The 2.8 is heavier but its not ridiculous. Don't let weight deter you unless you are very old and weak. When I saw both lenses I thought that the f4 was too small.

On the other hand, I hate waiting. It would drive me crazy to have to wait 6 months for a lens that nice. You will see 2,000 pictures on the next 6 months that you wish you had nice glass for.

I am glad that I could be of no help whatsoever.
He already has the 70-300 IS ? something... so he's not missing out on the long end.

IMO you should get the 2.8 non IS. I have the Sigma and was shooting pics at the zoo. There were times when the 2.8 wasn't fast enough :shock: And mind that it was during the day...

Plus, if (and when :lol: ) I get the 1.4 converter I'm going to have much less problems shooting in daylight.

[Andy_T]

DRisley,

WOW, that second photo you posted is just incredible :shock: !!!

Best regards,
Andy

[drisley]

DRisley,

WOW, that second photo you posted is just incredible :shock: !!!

Best regards,
Andy

Thankyou, but the lens (and extender) gets all the credit.
The full-size image is even more impressive. I almost fell out of my chair the first time I opened it in photoshop. It is absolutely the sharpest picture I've ever taken.
If you want to see the full-size image, straight out of C1 Pro with only default sharpening, click here (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/rebel/share/fullsize.jpg). It's about 1MB.

[Andy_T]

Thankyou, but the lens (and extender) gets all the credit.


You're right.

Your camera sure does take good photos :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[drisley]

Well, it sure as heck can't be me, that's for sure!
:lol:

[leehal]

Wait 6 months to buy a lens with no alternative to use ?

No competition, the way I look at things is, we may not be alive tomorrow so enjoy it while you can - go for the 4.0, keep saving and then trade in the for the 2.8 if you think it is worthwhile.

[Olegis]

Even with no real need for an extra stop of light, the f/2.8 will allow you more flexibility with DOF control. Portraits at 200mm and f/2.8 just look great because of the blurred background effect :

http://www.pbase.com/image/32017325.jpg

I'd say - get the 2.8 non-IS version. Even try to find this lens used - will cost you less than new and produce the same results. I got mine for about $800 (2 years old, used by a pro photographer) and I've never been happier with my photographs with it.

P.S. Great shots Drisley, as always ! Very sharp, very colorful !

[jukas]

Thank you for all the replies.. I really should just get the 2.8L (IS just isn't a realistic option like CDS said) but I'm twitching at the double price tag :cry: B&H has the F4 new for $575 but the F/2.8 is $1139.

For the price of the F/2.8 I could get the F4, B&H's 3yr extended warranty, a set of my most commonly used filters (ND, Polarizer, Grad ND and UV) a new bag and maybe even the 1.4x tele.

[jukas]

I'd say - get the 2.8 non-IS version. Even try to find this lens used - will cost you less than new and produce the same results. I got mine for about $800 (2 years old, used by a pro photographer) and I've never been happier with my photographs with it.


I've thought of this option, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable buying a used lens for that much $. Between the prices people want for their used equipment, to the risk of being ripped off, and the factor of having a already used lens without a warranty I've tended to shy away from used lenses.

[I Simonius]

Thankyou, but the lens (and extender) gets all the credit.
The full-size image is even more impressive. I almost fell out of my chair the first time I opened it in photoshop. It is absolutely the sharpest picture I've ever taken.
If you want to see the full-size image, straight out of C1 Pro with only default sharpening, click here (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/rebel/share/fullsize.jpg). It's about 1MB.


get a'not found' on that one Houston...

[Vetteography]

Thank you for all the replies.. I really should just get the 2.8L (IS just isn't a realistic option like CDS said) but I'm twitching at the double price tag :cry: B&H has the F4 new for $575 but the F/2.8 is $1139.

For the price of the F/2.8 I could get the F4, B&H's 3yr extended warranty, a set of my most commonly used filters (ND, Polarizer, Grad ND and UV) a new bag and maybe even the 1.4x tele.

I kicked around the same question for a bit, reading every article I could find and every thread I could dredge up. I ended up ordering the F/4 (Beach camera, 574.00 shipped 3-day, should be here tomorrow!!!!) because I would rather have a good lens now, than have to wait for a great lens sometime down the road. I'll have this one to use while I start saving my pennies again for the next "must have".

[Edit] I had to update to say my lens came early and I have a massive chubby. That is all, you can go back to your thread. :p

[picture-this]

I love my 70-200 2.8 IS, can use it for alot of stuff, but sometimes I wish I had more reach and think should I have gotten the 100-400. I'd like to solve that gap with a 1.4x and a 400 prime but $$$...

[xstrio]

i`d get the f4, the price is just so low at the minute u cant loose, you could sell it on ebay for more than that if you decide you need the 2.8

[dennykyser]

Well I strugled with this myself, and bought the F/4 then wanted more range so sold it and was going to get a 70-300 non L. After I sold the 70-200 f/4 I was told so many times that I would never get that quality out of a normal zoom, even after a center crop that I purchased another one.

Now a few months later I am getting ready to sell my Mint f/4 and buy the 2.8. I shoot lots of wild life and they are in the woods and evening and morning times need the extra stop. You wont loose much buying the f/4 and selling it later on EBAY as long as you have lots of possitive feedback in equivalent priced items. So buy the f/4 and save for the 2.8 that way you get the best of both worlds. Or wait a day or so and purchase my Mint f/4 with warranty on Ebay.

[mrclark321]

OK OK OK how much are you going to sell it for?

Dan

Well I strugled with this myself, and bought the F/4 then wanted more range so sold it and was going to get a 70-300 non L. After I sold the 70-200 f/4 I was told so many times that I would never get that quality out of a normal zoom, even after a center crop that I purchased another one.

Now a few months later I am getting ready to sell my Mint f/4 and buy the 2.8. I shoot lots of wild life and they are in the woods and evening and morning times need the extra stop. You wont loose much buying the f/4 and selling it later on EBAY as long as you have lots of possitive feedback in equivalent priced items. So buy the f/4 and save for the 2.8 that way you get the best of both worlds. Or wait a day or so and purchase my Mint f/4 with warranty on Ebay.

[dennykyser]

OK OK OK how much are you going to sell it for?

Dan

To be honest I am watching a couple on EBAY right now, to see what they are bringing. Mine will come with original box, pouch book, and warranty card.

[deedas]

Hmm, I'm interested on that lens as well. Let us know when you put it up on eBay. :)

[grego]

If price bothers you, Simga's 70-200 f/2.8 is a very good lens. I've used it(a friend's) and now own the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens.

It's a lot less expensive if you are worried about a price tag. And it is a solid lens. It's pretty damn fast too, because I put it to the test while shooting sports like college football.

But dude, don't buy the F/4. Keep versatility around you. it's better to have it, than to not, especially if you decide to buy an extender down the road. With a 2x, the lens becomes a f/5.6.

[mdr]

To give you a guide, I recently bought the 70-200mm f4 L with box, lens hood, pouch, booklet and warrenty card, all in mint condition for £300 plus £6 P&P through an add on this forum. Second hand eBay prices are about £370 plus P&P, bearing in mind that you don't have to pay the eBay listing fee and PayPal charges in a private sale.

[dennykyser]

I look at it this way. I got to use the f/4 Lens for a few months while saving for the 2.8. I will sell it and loose a little money. I keep my lenses MINT (Like New) and put a high quality filter on it as soon as it comes out of the box. I save all packing material books and warranty card so when I sell it I get as much as I can. So I loose a little, I consider it RENT for the lens I was able to use and see the brilliance of L Glass.