70-200L 4.0? or 2.8?

[sccdominant]

Hey guys whats up im hearing so many good things about theses lenses and i am sold now which on should i buy? Is it really worth the extra 4, 5 hundred dollars for the 2.8 or what? Who had what and what do you like, dislike about it?

[sccdominant]

awesome thanks guys for the help

[summerwind4]

you didn't give anyone a chance fella.................while you posted, i was testing the replacement 70-200 f/4 i picked up this morning.
first of all, what kind of shooting will you be doing?
what kind of light will you normally be shooting in?
little things like that tend to help all help you

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Depends on what your shooting man. I have the f/4 version and it is all I could ever want for out door sports and portrait photography. Incredibly fast AF, wicked sharp images, light weight, good lookin, the works.

I just started shooting indoor soccer a few days ago though and it is TERRIBLE. If you want to do any kind of indoor sports the f/4 is not for you, and if there's someone else out there who will disagree with this, please fill me in as to why!

For anything indoor you'll need that f/2.8, but I don't see it being worth all the extra money for the extra stop. If it were me, I'd just save the extra cash and get the IS version. It'd be far more worth it.

[gramps]

They are both great but if you are shooting indoors go with the 2.8

[DavidEB]

Look at the Sigma 70-200 f2,8 as well. Several reviews on this forum and elsewhere - try the forum's search to find many hossanahs. An excellent lens, at a price similar to Canon's f4. This (http://www.pbase.com/davideb/image/44234900) was taken with the sigma, high-speed action in terrible light.

[clicky]

I've had the 70-200 f/4 and the lens is a bargain in every way exept indoor. As mentioned earlier in this thread this is not the lens for indoor-shooting, but you'll almost there (with the f/4) when you cranck up the ISO and add the use of flash. I sold the f/4 and added the extra $ and bought the f/2.8 IS, not just for the indoor-issue but the IS is really handy from time to time. The f/2.8 also comes with a weather seal that enables you to shoot in heavy rain (in combination with 1D series camera that is...)

[blue_max]

awesome thanks guys for the help


As you posted this over an hour ago, I am curious. What did you buy?

Graham

[Rob612]

I have and use the 2.8 IS (had the 2.8 non-is before) and have no experience with the 4. But I can tell you that the 2.8 IS is really superb.

[condyk]

All the current 70-200mm models from Canon or Sigma are superb. Check for the best prices and buy what you can best afford.

[GoneFission]

As you posted this over an hour ago, I am curious. What did you buy?


Hehe... I'm not the original poster, but after reading many threads here (including this one) regarding longer lenses, I picked up a 70-200mm f/4L about an hour ago. I was actually leaning towards the 100-300mm, but they were out of stock, so I somehow managed to talk myself into spending twice as much for the L (it took a lot of arm-twisting, let me tell you ;))... Good thing I'm single! :D

[blue_max]

Hehe... I'm not the original poster, but after reading many threads here (including this one) regarding longer lenses, I picked up a 70-200mm f/4L about an hour ago. I was actually leaning towards the 100-300mm, but they were out of stock, so I somehow managed to talk myself into spending twice as much for the L (it took a lot of arm-twisting, let me tell you ;))... Good thing I'm single! :D

I can't comment on the 100-300, but the Canon 70-200f4L is an absolute corker of a lens and superb value. It virtually matches the legendary 135mm f2L at f4.5, so you will be very happy with it.

I have both and can't really justify keeping them both, but am torn which one to sell. It's that good. It's not a lens you will lose too much money on, whatever happens, so a very sober purchase.

It has only one failing – it's f4, but you have to have some excuse to halve it's cost compared to Canon's 2.8

Graham

[sccdominant]

ok but what about if im going to shoot parties indoors? is that going to be bad if i have the f4? i dont know i really dont want to spend a grand right now but if makes so much difference then i guess its worth it

[Croasdail]

If you are shooting indoors and there subject will be moving... don't even go near the f4. For outdoors it is fine....it is not an indoors lens. F2.8 is minimally workable if you want really sharp images.

[sccdominant]

ok ok im sold on the 2.8 no worries thanks guys for the help anyone take off the tripod collar? i heard it weighs a lot so if its off than is it lighter by a difference?

[Headcase650]

If money is an isue and you dont need the IS look into the sigma 70-200 2.8, it can be found for less than $800

[Rob612]

ok ok im sold on the 2.8 no worries thanks guys for the help anyone take off the tripod collar? i heard it weighs a lot so if its off than is it lighter by a difference?

I'll keep mine on, usually. Even if I go without a monopod, the collar comes in handy as a support, as a sort of handle and so on. The little extra weight doesnt bother too much, afterall the 20D+grip+70-200 is already heavy, a little more is not a problem.

[ttmatsu]

You have the kit lens and the 50 f1.8. Do you understand that for every fstop, the amount of light is either halved or doubled depending on which way you go so your shutter speed is halved or doubled? Unless the parties you are taking pictures at are lit up like a pro sports arena, it doesn't much matter if you have f2.8. You can test this with your f1.8. Set the aperature for 2.8 and check your shutter speed. Holding your 3 pound 70-200 constant length lens, you need a shutter speed close to 1/200. What kind of party requires a 70-200 instead of a 24-70 range?

I take my collar off sometimes but most of the time, I just twist it out of the way.

[sccdominant]

parties isnt it -its going to be a a primary sports lens. I love to shoot snowboarding, wakeboarding and football. The lens will also be used for portraits and im just wondering if i need the 2.8. The only thing that scares me is that i get the f4 and wished i would have got the 2.8 because of the speed and the lower light situations like indoor things (parties,Portraits,and maybe late day snowboarding,wakeboard pictures) am i thinking correctly or am i just totally confused

[sccdominant]

tight im solved the 2.8

[LightRules]

Used the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for a year (excellent build and optics), added 70-200 f4, sold f4 (optically good but didn't like "feel"), tried 70-200IS, sold 70-200EX, bought 70-200IS, now I'm set. Note, optically the EX and IS are close, but it was the IS that sold me. If you don't need IS, look strongly at the EX.

[hotled]

I had the same problem making a choice..but tonight I made up my mind and ordered the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 ...why?

90% Of my shooting will be outdoors, and here in TX that usualy means bright skies. Even on dim days this lens performs great according to all the reviews..not a low light lens but overcast days aren't an issue.
I also figure if I need to shoot indoors, I won't need a long reach so I could go with a smaller lens at 2.8 or better.
And the price tag helps at 759.00 delivered :lol:

[bolantej]

cool. post some pics when you get 'em.

[mdude85]

ok but what about if im going to shoot parties indoors? is that going to be bad if i have the f4? i dont know i really dont want to spend a grand right now but if makes so much difference then i guess its worth it

you must be partying in some BIG rooms to justify the use of the 70-200 f2.8 for indoor parties.