70 - 200 f4 L

[JuStDaVe]

Ok 2 things i have just put one on layby cos i cant afford a f2.8 is it just as good just with out the extra stop ?

and does all the focus etc the same i used a 2.8 on the weekend and i have never used a f4 just want to know if its the same shooting wise

any help tips etc would be great.

also does any one know of a cheep wide angle i shoot cars and some rooms for buildings and need as wide as i can go without major fish eye look any brand cheaper the better

ps for 20d

thanks in advance anyone

[Toogy]

The 70-200 F4 is a wonderful lens. Some say it is actually a tad sharper at F4 than the F2.8 one is?
I have never used a F2.8 one, but I would assume they are about the same to use, except the F4 is lighter.

[thomasrhee]

The 70-200/4L is a killer lens and probably the best lens for the $$$ in the Canon lineup (along with the 17-40/4L). In terms of image quality, it's the equal of the 2.8L and 2.8L IS. The only thing "inferior" about the 4L is the slower speed and lack of IS. The 4L handles much nicer due to the lighter weight and smaller size.

As far as a wide angle for your 20D, your best bet is probably the 10-22mm if you need to go ultra wide. At $799, IMO, it's very reasonably priced for a lens in this focal range. This is the next lens I'll be purchasing in the next 2 weeks.

Your other choice would be the Sigma 12-24 which is slightly cheaper but not as wide and slower. I haven't used the Sigma so I don't have any comments about it although it seems to get favorable reviews.

[JuStDaVe]

so the f4 .. is slower at focusing then the 2.8 ?

this is my main concern
dave

[Cadwell]

so the f4 .. is slower at focusing then the 2.8 ?

this is my main concern
dave

Don't be concerned, it's one of the fastest focusing zoom lenses on the planet.

(by "slower" he means it's 1 f/stop slower - nothing to do with focusing speed)

[mr.photoguy]

I had the pleasure to try out a 70-200 2.8 IS this saturday, but the AF wasn't working so I just MF until the red dot lit up.. I have to say.. the quality of the image at 2.8 is very good.
I have the F4L, and I am very happy with it, and I love how sharp it is.. if you look at my recent post of Saturday's trip to the bronx zoo in the nature section, you will see the image with the caption above designating it as the 2.8 IS image @ 2.8 ...

They are all lovely lenses, ( 2.8/2.8 IS/f4L's. ) Either, or all (if you can afford em) will make you a happy canoner.

[mdr]

The only reasons to go for the f2.8 or f2.8 IS is the f2.8 and the IS. Unless you really need the f2.8 and/or IS, you would be mental not to buy the f4. Quality does not come into the equation.

The f4 is a winner due to it's extremely low price, and the reduced size/weight. It's a great walkabout/travel lens, easily handheld, and produces stunning results with the 1.4x TC. I carry it with me daily in my Hadley Pro with the 20D, 17-40 f4 L, 1.4x TC, Flashtrax, CF cards and filters.

The f2,8 and f2.8 IS wouldn't even fit in the Hadley Pro on their own!!!