70-200mm 2.8 f USM IS L canon lens

[nathanphillips]

Alright, finally decided to register for these forums!
Ive been reading them for a long time now, but didnt want to post / register.

First, let me say, this forum is great! I have learned soo much from it!

Second, as per the subject, I am wondering about the 70-200mm USM IS L lens. I will be purchasing soon (saving up right now, just about there!), but have flip floped a number of times now on what I should get. I think my first lens should be the 70-200mm lens, but I also may want to get the 100-400 canon lens in the future (for longer, nature shots). Then these past couple days I have been in love with some macro work I have seen. Anyways, for the question...is there too much overlap between the 70-200 and the 100-400 to make it worth it? Will the 70-200 be good enough for macro work?

Thanks! ;)

[nathanphillips]

oh, and I am buying a 20d body, without the kit lens...body only, at the same time!

[Maureen Souza]

Lucky guy..... that lens will be my next big purchase!!!

[CyberDyneSystems]

I used the 70-200mm with extension rings and or a 500D close up filter as my "macro" lens almost exclusively. It works great. Look at the set of three kenko extension tubes for about $100.00,.. it will turn any lens you own,. including the excellent 70-200mm into a macro lens :)

[cmM]

one of the best lenses Canon makes. You won't be disappointed.

[nathanphillips]

thnx CyberDyneSystems, I will look into getting extension tubes. But that looks like something I can just get from the local photo store without a problem. Thanks!

For my 2nd question...is there too much overlap between the 70-200mm and the 100-400 I want to get in the future? Is there any point of getting the 100-400? I want to be able to reach quite far in the future, thus the 100-400. Cant really think of anything else that could replace the 100-400 for me....

[Olegis]

Wait a minute - you want to get the 70-200 as your ONLY lens ? Or do you already have other lenses as well ?

[nathanphillips]

ya..the 70-200 will be my only lens for a little while...perhaps a month or 2...over the summer until my summer job can pay for the next lens...thinking about the 100-400. Thats the plan...just wondering what you guys think...

[Olegis]

Telephoto lens is OK if you ONLY shoot distant objects - but what about some "general use" lens ? Won't you be shooting some "regular" stuff, like places, buildings, landscapes etc ?

[chris.bailey]

If its your only lens go for the 70-200 first for sure, if you can stretch to a 1.4x then you add some more coverage. I would then add the 28-70 before the 100-400.

[tim]

I'd personally get a lens like the Tamron 28-75 first, or even the kit lens, it's so cheap and it can do wide angle.

[digitalmono]

No matter if the 70-200 (2.8 IS) is going to be your only lens or not, I can say :

You'll be a very happy and satisfied owner. Go and get it.

[Tom Reid]

20D and 70-200 IS are a great combo Nathan. I use that for hockey shoots.

For the sake of another hundred or so bucks get the 18-55 kit lens when you buy the 20D. Having nothing below the 70 length will really restrict you and that kit lens is pretty good for a general use lens. I think you'll be sorry otherwise and the few months you'll be waiting to buy that other lens will seem like an eternity. (Easy for me to say, not my money!!)

[nathanphillips]

The other option I guess is getting a fixed focal 50mm...
Would that work fine? Instead of the kit lens? Ive heard nothing nothing but complaints about the kit lens...
So, like this, 70-200, then 50, then 100-400?
But the question is, is there still too much overlap between the 100-400 and the 70-200 to make it worth it?

[cmM]

speaking in terms of focal length strictly, Yes, there is much overlap. But, there are many instances where you can't use the 100-400, like indoor shots. The 70-200 is f/2.8, IS, works great in pretty much any conditions. The 100-400, as you said, would work excelent outside for nature shots.

[nathanphillips]

hmm...looking at prices here, I MAY be able to spring for a CANON 50MM F1.4 USM AF LENS. thats around ~300$ US. If I dig into savings, I can just outright buy both the 50 and 70-200 right from the start. But I guess the 100-400 wont come for a while, as well as the 1.4 telecon...

[nathanphillips]

Too bad I want to stick with canon lens, or I would get a 200-500 lens...
Canon does not make anything like that though?

[jukas]

hmm...looking at prices here, I MAY be able to spring for a CANON 50MM F1.4 USM AF LENS. thats around ~300$ US. If I dig into savings, I can just outright buy both the 50 and 70-200 right from the start. But I guess the 100-400 wont come for a while, as well as the 1.4 telecon...

Why not look at the thrifty-fifty? It's an incredibly sharp prime, stops down to f/1.8 and is 1/3rd the cost of the 50 1.4 .

[Chris1le]

speaking in terms of focal length strictly, Yes, there is much overlap. But, there are many instances where you can't use the 100-400, like indoor shots. The 70-200 is f/2.8, IS, works great in pretty much any conditions. The 100-400, as you said, would work excelent outside for nature shots.

That is the way I feel. I use the 100-400L outdoors. Would not even think about using it indoors. The 70-200 f2.8 makes a pretty usable indoor zoom.

[Chazs]

I finally saw the 70-200 F2.8 in person for the first time over the weekend at our symphony concert. Holy cr*p batman, that thing is HUGE!!! No way would it be my ONLY lens; your left arm will look like Popeye's after a few weeks. If you're spending the money, may as well throw in the 50mm 1.8 for those times when the arm gets tired or you want to be a little more discrete. Congrats on the purchases though. I'm jeolous. :)

[cmM]

I finally saw the 70-200 F2.8 in person for the first time over the weekend at our symphony concert. Holy cr*p batman, that thing is HUGE!!! No way would it be my ONLY lens; your left arm will look like Popeye's after a few weeks. If you're spending the money, may as well throw in the 50mm 1.8 for those times when the arm gets tired or you want to be a little more discrete. Congrats on the purchases though. I'm jeolous. http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif
Gorgeous, isn't it?
http://www.cmuntean.net/files/jul10rebel.jpg

[nathanphillips]

oh..god....PLEASE..I DONT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO GET IT RIGHT THIS MINUTE! I have to wait a couple weeks until my pay stub...
..drool...:(

[nathanphillips]

P.S...anymore pics?

oh..give me more..plz!!!

[cmM]

heey now!
Take a deeeep breath, and think of a happy place!
:D:D:D

I don't have any more pics.

[nathanphillips]

haha...I need more!

[nathanphillips]

cmM, I was just looking at your personal website..nice!

What lens are you using for those biking shots?

[cmM]

thanks :D

Canon 75-300 for most of those

http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug22cyc/

[xc611]

My suggestion is to get three lens (17-40, 50, 85) instead of a 70-200/2.8, and then the 100-400, you don't need a 70-200.

After I got my 100-400, the 70-200 has been sitting on my shelf for a while. Outdoor 100-400 is great, and 70-200 is too short, indoor you can use 50 and 85, or 17-40 with flash.

jack

[DieselGirl]

CMM
You shoot mostly in RAW?

[nathanphillips]

Which 75-300 are you talking about? Specs plz
thanks

[jrm]

I finally saw the 70-200 F2.8 in person for the first time over the weekend at our symphony concert. Holy cr*p batman, that thing is HUGE!!! No way would it be my ONLY lens; your left arm will look like Popeye's after a few weeks. If you're spending the money, may as well throw in the 50mm 1.8 for those times when the arm gets tired or you want to be a little more discrete. Congrats on the purchases though. I'm jeolous. :)

Hehe... I took mine on a cruise last summer. Whenever I was oof taking pictures and the wife met someone, she would simply describe me by the lens. That would always get a big "oh yeah, the buy with the giant white lens." It became a running joke.

Certainly not an inconspicuous lens. And it does weigh a ton after lugging it around for a few hours. Still, I wouldn't trade it for anything else. (Then again, after spending all that money, you feel obligated to love it.) :)

--Joe

[cmM]

DieselGirl, I shoot only RAW.

Nathan, that's the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM III lens. One of the cheap, crappy lenses, but... it's all about the photographer ;).
j/k (most of those shots are taken using manual focus, manual mode, RAW)

Techincally, the 100-400 would deliver infinitely better results (or the 70-200).

[Amstaff]

I own the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM III and the 70-200mm 2.8 f USM IS L. There is no comparason. I use them both on my 300D. THe 70-200mm 2.8 f USM IS L is hands down a supreme lens. Even with out the IS on. The detail, color and clarity is unreal on the 70-200. I am giving my 300d to my girl and grabbing the 20D. I can not wait to couple that body with the 70-200.

[JSolie]

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif
Gorgeous, isn't it?


So, that's what I've got to look forward to? :shock::shock:

urk urk urk urk urk

-- John

[cc10d]

I shoot mostly wildlife, and use the 100-400 L. It works very well up to 350 or so and very adequate at 400. The IS is great for using the lens handheld.

For the walk around, I use either the Canon 28-135 IS or the Tamron 28-75 XR Di LD IF. The Canon works quite well, (it is not a 70-200 2.8 ) at f5.6 and especially f8 or 11 it is quite good. when necessary, it sharpens up good in photoshop and I have many very nice photos with it. The Tamron gives me the 2.8 and is quiite good optically.

I have the 200 f2.8 L prime and it is a very good lens. Not nearly as noticable as the pretty white ones. Much easier on the arm also. That said I also have the 300 f2.8 L and it is far and away the best lens I have, but nature hikes leaves it in the the car or at home because the 100-400 is much more convenient and lighter. and gives L results, just not quite a 300 2.8. More pics taken though. So I have both black and white. Like them all for each ones particular advantages.

Bottom line if I was back to only 2 lenses, It would be the 100-400 L as most my pics are wildlife outdoors. And then a medium zoom for other shots. either of the ones mentioned above. The Canon gives a bigger range and IS, The Tamron at 2.8 has the potential for lower light use but limited range.

The 70=200 2.8 L IS has the reputatiion that cannnot be disputed for good reason, It performs! I believe it with the 2.0 is not as sharp as the 400 L or the 100-400 L. FWIW

[nathanphillips]

oooh...I would love to see a pic of the 70-200 2.8 IS L with a 2.0 tele converter on an EOS 20d....DROOL :o:o

[nathanphillips]

hmm...I cannot quite recall..but a couple days ago, I read something that put me off the 2.0 tele converter with the 70-200 2.8...I cannot recall. It can still autofocus, right? hmmm....its not the decrease in image quality, I know about that...hmmm

[jukas]

hmm...I cannot quite recall..but a couple days ago, I read something that put me off the 2.0 tele converter with the 70-200 2.8...I cannot recall. It can still autofocus, right? hmmm....its not the decrease in image quality, I know about that...hmmm

If my math isn't off the 70 - 200 2.8 with a 2x would be a minimum of f/5.6 which should still be able to AF. It's the 100 - 400 L that wouldn't be able to AF on a non 1 series body with a 2x tele converter.

[DieselGirl]

Thanks for the answer CMM.

[nathanphillips]

hmm...I remember it was with the 70-200 2.8 f lens...guess I must be dreaming here...

The real question for me then, is should I just get the 2.0 tele converter and the 70-200 2.8, and use the same lens for both indor sport and outdoor wildlife? It will have the same reach as the 100-400, and will be just as sharp with the tele converter on...but I can take it off for indor sports shots, etc...and get the faster / sharper lens I need....
hmmm...then I just have to worry about the short end again...getting something like the 50 prime..or something like that....;)

[digitalmono]

An outdoor one:

[Phil V]

Nathan, I need to ask, I can't understand why noone else has; What kit have you previously owned, what experience do you have as a photographer?:confused:

The 20d and 70-200 2.8 is a great combo, I can use it nearly all day at a motor racing event or out at the zoo. However it's not really a lens I'd recommend to the uninitiated, it weighs a ton and is suitable for perhaps 10% of my regular (non motorsport) shooting. :cool:

As a first lens the 17-85IS will let you learn what the camera can do (and what you like to do) and from there you'll know how much faster/wider/longer you'll need. Unless of course you really are only interested in shooting sports and head and shoulders portraits (200 is too short really for wildlife).

[darkdrakon]

buy the 50.mm 1.8 it's a great lens and cheep too

[nathanphillips]

Phil V, Ive had a bunch of xp with point and shoots, and have used a friends d60 for a long time...
Right now, I think I may try and get a 70-200 with a 2.0 tele converter...this should reach wildlife....I could then use the same lens for my sports shots, etc...For the shorter shots, I think I will prob be getting a 50mm 1.8

Thats the plan right now, I think....If I dont like the 2.0 tele converter quality shots, I could always just switch to a 100-400 later on..and sell the converter.

[cc10d]

I would recomend your reconsidering about the 2x I would not use more than the 1.4 with the lens you propose. That for good sharpness and contrast. Just my humble oopinion.

[nathanphillips]

hmm...but with 1.4, I dont think the reach would be long enough to use it for wildlife, would it?
it would be 98-280, at 4f?

[darkdrakon]

problem is that with the 2x you will get realy soft pictures been there done that...

[JasonW]

It is worthwhile remembering that the 20D has a1.6x multiplier which gives and effective focal lenght of 112-320mm with the 70-200 lens (at F2.8!!). The 100-400 lens equates to 160-640mm which is obviously very long. For an all round balance I think that the 70-200 IS USM is probably a good option as long as you don't think that you will need to shoot above 320mm. Personally i would go with the 70-200 (if I had a lazy A$3000 that this thing costs in Australia.....)

[nathanphillips]

Well, I ran into almost $500 today (lol)...I may be able to get my setup even sooner than I thought....
Given that the 100-400 is ~ $500 cheaper than the 70-200 2.8 IS, Im really stuck with what to do....
Right now, I am on the verge of buying from dell: Eos 20d with kit lens, and the 100-400..all for 3600$ CAD, tax inc!!!
I think this a great deal, and if I can call Dell and get them to put 2 of those 75$ coupons from a couple days ago on, I think I will just have to pull the trigger...

[nathanphillips]

btw, thats 3600$ CAD, ~3000$ US

[ylikojola]

I've been thinking of getting EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for a long time, but recently turned my mind toward EF 135 f/2 L and EF 1.4x combo. My reasons:

- with f/2 slightly better performance in low light, IS helps with 70-200 2.8, but wouldn't freeze motion
- superb image quality (sharpness, bokeh, contrast) maybe better than 70-200 F2.8 IS
- smaller and lighter
- black, not shining like white telephotos
- with EF 1.4x the focal length is 189 which is quite near 200
- cheeper

What I wouldn't get:
- versality of zoom (versus prime)
- IS
- focal lengths limited to 135 and 189

Costs are something like:
EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS 1650$
EF 135 f/2 900$
EF 1.4x II 280$

I already have EF 50 f/1.8 and EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS.
Now I seek more reach, many times indoors at low light (concerts, weddings, birthday parties, portraits) and street photography, too. I don't do nature photography so I seldom need more reach than 200 with my EOS-10D. If I miss the versality of 70-200 then I could get EF 70-200 f/4 for 580$.

Those of you who have both lenses. Do you agree with me? Do I miss something in here?
Which lens you prefer to use and when?

Thanks, Markus

[poke]

You will never regret the 70-200... I almost never take it off the camera

[malcolmx]

i have both and i often use the 200 for macro if you use the 400 with a2x tele converter you loose some auto functions i think the 200 is an ok lens

[RAZCJZ]

Have had the 70-200l f2.8 for about 1.5 years now and without a doubt the best lens I have ever had. Wouldn't consider anything else but the L series of glass. Well worth the extra cash by far!

[Longwatcher]

Having used both the 70-200/2.8L IS and the 100-400L IS,
The 70-200 wins for quality within its range and is about the same or sometimes slightly better even with the 1.4x extender, but with the 2x extender on the 70-200, the 100-400 wins hands down.

I will say if you get the 100-400 first, you will feel the need to get the 70-200/2.8L IS at some point. If you get the 70-200/2.8L IS and a 1.4TC first, you may not feel the need for the 100-400.

That said, Although I use my 70-200 more frequently, I am sometimes very glad to have my 100-400 sometimes as it gives me that extra range without paying for a long prime.
And for the really long (and not so good) shot, add the 2x and 1.4x onto the 100-400 and you can reach out and touch someone miles away it seems (on a bright sunny day).

So my recommendation would be get the 70-200/2.8L IS first, then the 1.4x extender, maybe the 2x and then if you still need more range get the 100-400.

Just my opinion and experience,