70-200mm lens assistance

[typehxr1]

Hey guys! Great forum--been lurking and needed some help. I am in the process of spending some money on compiling a collection of lenses for my 7D so that I can ditch my kit lens. Aside from the others I am considering (will probably post about those later), I recently bid on a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS VERSION 1. I am having second thoughts about it and getting the f/4L IS II instead as it is newer. If you were me, would you email the seller to cancel the bid or would you pay for this lens? At the rate I am bidding, they will both run me the same amount of money; albeit one being new (f4) and the other one used. What should I do? Thanks in advance for your help.

The link below is of the auction I bid on:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/150836819908...=p5197.c0.m619

[duane0524]

Originally Posted by typehxr1

Hey guys! Great forum--been lurking and needed some help. I am in the process of spending some money on compiling a collection of lenses for my 7D so that I can ditch my kit lens. Aside from the others I am considering (will probably post about those later), I recently bid on a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS VERSION 1. I am having second thoughts about it and getting the f/4L IS II instead as it is newer. If you were me, would you email the seller to cancel the bid or would you pay for this lens? At the rate I am bidding, they will both run me the same amount of money; albeit one being new (f4) and the other one used. What should I do? Thanks in advance for your help.

The link below is of the auction I bid on:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/150836819908...=p5197.c0.m619

The version II is for the f2.8, not the f4 and it is much more money then version I. I think it's is a great price for this lens and there is 7 days left for bidding, i really don't think this will hold up anyway.

[AntonLargiader]

There is no f/4 II is there? So you're deciding between a used f/2.8 IS and a new f/4 IS, right? If you don't want 2.8, I think the f/4L IS has all of the advantages. Better IQ, smaller, lighter. And it's new.

[typehxr1]

Originally Posted by AntonLargiader

There is no f/4 II is there? So you're deciding between a used f/2.8 IS and a new f/4 IS, right? If you don't want 2.8, I think the f/4L IS has all of the advantages. Better IQ, smaller, lighter. And it's new.

I figured the version 1 of the 2.8IS was older but didn't know the f/4IS was newer. I got outbid about 4 minutes after I created this post, so it looks like I am in the clear.

To be honest, I don't think I will get f2.8 anyway. I have been seeing comparison shots online and when I when I need it to reach (which is what I am getting it for...not so much for the 70-100mm range), it can't get clear shots at f/2.8 anyway. Since most of my zoom shooting will be outdoors, the f/4 IS makes more sense. If I get to the point where I need that kind of reach indoors and need faster glass, I'll get a f/2.8 or a longer reach prime lens.

Most of the reach I need on the zoom is to shoot my Dobermans and Min Pins running around at the dog park during the day. At 200mm in sunglight, will IS even help me any or should I get the non-IS f/4L?

[typehxr1]

I just assumed there was an f/4L IS II out since there was one for the f/2.8L. Sorry

[duane0524]

Originally Posted by typehxr1

Most of the reach I need on the zoom is to shoot my Dobermans and Min Pins running around at the dog park during the day. At 200mm in sunglight, will IS even help me any or should I get the non-IS f/4L?

IS will not help you freeze action, it will come in handy for still scenes that you want to hand hold vs using a tripod.

[typehxr1]

Originally Posted by duane0524

IS will not help you freeze action, it will come in handy for still scenes that you want to hand hold vs using a tripod.

I think the f/4L IS comes with the tripod mount and a few extra accessories that add up to my not much more than the non-IS version. I need to research this more before I pull the trigger

[jack880]

Originally Posted by typehxr1

I figured the version 1 of the 2.8IS was older but didn't know the f/4IS was newer. I got outbid about 4 minutes after I created this post, so it looks like I am in the clear.

To be honest, I don't think I will get f2.8 anyway. I have been seeing comparison shots online and when I when I need it to reach (which is what I am getting it for...not so much for the 70-100mm range), it can't get clear shots at f/2.8 anyway. Since most of my zoom shooting will be outdoors, the f/4 IS makes more sense. If I get to the point where I need that kind of reach indoors and need faster glass, I'll get a f/2.8 or a longer reach prime lens.

Most of the reach I need on the zoom is to shoot my Dobermans and Min Pins running around at the dog park during the day. At 200mm in sunglight, will IS even help me any or should I get the non-IS f/4L?

What do you mean by that? I've got the 2.8L mk1 and it's a great lens. Of course it can get excellent quality shots at 200mm and 2.8.

[cacawcacaw]

For full frame cameras, the 70-200 is short enough for portrait work and long enough for performances and sports. On a crop sensor camera, like the 7D, the effective focal range becomes 112-320 so the lens becomes slightly less well suited for portraits and other close shots.

If your goal is to have a general purpose telephoto for your 7D, take a look at the Sigma 50-150 (effective 80-240) f/2.8 that was announced last month. Image quality, focus speed, etc. are on par with the Canon Mk1's and if you don't mind a black Sigma instead of a white Canon, you can have an f/2.8 with image stabilization for $150 less than Canon's f/4 IS.

[wayne.robbins]

Other than bragging rights, what's the point in even calculating "effective" focal lengths? Rhetorical question. It's totally pointless for someone that has a single (crop) camera. Actually, it's pointless for someone that has only a full frame camera as well... And those that have both- well, they already know how that goes. So, what's the point in calculating the "effective" focal lengths.. It is what it is. If someone has never used a full frame camera- then 200 to him/her is 200 ! No need to calculate the effective focal length. The most it does is add confusion. "Oops, I gotta calculate the effective focal length first".. Really guys- it's pointless except for bragging rights. Oh, by the way- you even converted the focal length on a "DC" lens- a lens designed explicitly for CROP cameras- the 50-150! Oh, gosh, I have a 18-135 EF-S lens- should I convert that too ? ? ? IF and when they go to full frame- they will realize how the perspective changes- and wow, that lens becomes magically shorter.. But if they never do- it does not matter..
OK. I shot the moon a couple of months back.. I used a Sigma 50-500 with a 1.4x TC.. 700mm. The shot was OK- and when I sent it around to a few guys at work- yeah, I touted - it was at about 1120mm effective focal length.. Oooh.. Ahhh..

OP. From what I've read- you'd be happy with a Sigma 70-200 OS as well. It's f/2.8 and about as much as the Canon F/4 IS. But it does f/2.8 better than the Canon f/4 does f/2.8 ! OK. F/2.8 will give you a better focusing on the center point. It'll also allow you to separate the background a little more than the f/4. It's relatively fast although most that have had it and the Canon f/4 will say that the AF on the Canon is a little bit faster-not necessarily a lot-- but some.

So, f/2.8 advantages- more accurate center focus for you. f/2.8 DOF- easier background separation, etc. Lower light- aka faster shutter speeds. Heavier. With the Canon f/2.8- AF will be a little faster- but not much. With the F/4- I would expect the same. the Sigma is supposed to be slightly sharper at f/4 than the Canon f/4 is. The Sigma does play well with its own TC's (Don't have a kenko to try )- so the 1.4x and 2.x are plausible.

F/4- advantages- lighter in weight. AF might be a bit faster than the Sigma. White lens -if that matters.

[typehxr1]

Originally Posted by cacawcacaw

For full frame cameras, the 70-200 is short enough for portrait work and long enough for performances and sports. On a crop sensor camera, like the 7D, the effective focal range becomes 112-320 so the lens becomes slightly less well suited for portraits and other close shots.

If your goal is to have a general purpose telephoto for your 7D, take a look at the Sigma 50-150 (effective 80-240) f/2.8 that was announced last month. Image quality, focus speed, etc. are on par with the Canon Mk1's and if your ego can handle a black Sigma instead of a white Canon, you can have an f/2.8 with image stabilization for $150 less than Canon's f/4 IS.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Originally Posted by jack880

What do you mean by that? I've got the 2.8L mk1 and it's a great lens. Of course it can get excellent quality shots at 200mm and 2.8.

Most sharp sports shots I see online w/the 70-200m f/2.8L are at an aperture of f/4 or higher. So I was thinking, why not just get the f/4? That is unless the good 70-200mm f/4L IS shots don't kick in in until 1 stop lower than 4.

[duane0524]

I had the 70-200 f4 to start and was happy using it to shoot my daughter's filed hockey games. I was happy with it until the season went on and dusk was coming earlier,it was then I realized I would need the 2.8.

[cacawcacaw]

Originally Posted by wayne.robbins

Other than bragging rights, what's the point in even calculating "effective" focal lengths? ...

Just to go along with your line of reasoning, what's the point in even mentioning focal lengths? Oh yeah, it has something to do with the suitability of the lens for certain situations. So when someone asks you if most photographers prefer an 85mm prime or a 135mm prime for portraits, I guess your answer would be, "Focal length doesn't matter. It is what it is."