Seriously need HELP deciding on which 70-200mm lens to get.

[electra]

I can't decide whether to get a...

Canon 70-200mm F/4L USM

or a

Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L USM

Which one would you recommend and why?


What I need it for?...

I'm currently working as a 'Newspaper Photographer' at my uni. I'm at the moment using a Canon 17-85mm IS USM lens. I don't have any other lens =( Right now, I'm really keen on getting the F/4L, because they're great in value. And they're an awesome lens. And it's all I can afford for now.

After I graduate at the end of this year, I will get myself out there and make a name for myself as a PRO photographer, especializing in Wedding Photography. I'm in Australia. They sell the f/4L at around AUD$1000 and the F/2.8L at around AUD$1850.

I really can't decide. I want to get my lens SOON


...

[AjP]

I'm personaly prefer 2.8L IS becuase I'm shooting a lot indoor as well as candit , and this lense is fast, IS, 2.8 is great for inside and portrait shots

IMHO

[Todd Jacobsen]

Not sure why there is a quesion.

2.8L provides more light range for you to work with.

[HJMinard]

Originally Posted by Todd Jacobsen

Not sure why there is a quesion.

2.8L provides more light range for you to work with.

I mostly agree with Todd ... if you can afford it, the 2.8 is the obvious choice. With regard to build and image quality, they're basically the same lens.

If money is an issue, and you're shooting mostly outdoors in relatively bright light, then the 4.0 becomes the logical choice. The only other reason to choose the 4.0 would be size and weight considerations.

[RikWriter]

I agree, if you have the money, get the 2.8. However if you don't have the money, the f4 version is very very nice for the price.

[Jonny]

2.8......you will always be lusting after it if you choose the F4.
Always go for the best, it saves time because in the end you know its just a matter of time!!!!!!

Like my brother says " You can only sit in the barbers shop so long before you get you hair cut! "

[neil_r]

f2.8 it can do all that the other can do and that ain't true for the f4. Trust me you will need the speed.

N

[wareseeker]

Here is my case:

Bought EF 70-200mm f/4L USM. Did not like it sold it.
Then bought EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (Pricey, too heavy, used it on tripod why bother to buy IS) returned it.
And again, bought EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. Now I am sticking with it. But only used twice. What a waste!

If anyone has interested I will sell it.

[Todd Jacobsen]

Originally Posted by wareseeker

Here is my case:

Bought EF 70-200mm f/4L USM. Did not like it sold it.
Then bought EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (Pricey, too heavy, used it on tripod why bother to buy IS) returned it.
And again, bought EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. Now I am sticking with it. But only used twice. What a waste!

If anyone has interested I will sell it.

Weight is notice-able but not over-bearing. I own the 24-70L (heavy) , so my opinion is biased. If you have never used either lens, the weight is quite apparent and will probably surprise you.

4.0L: 1.6 Lbs
2.8L: 2.8 Lbs
2.8L IS: 3.5 Lbs
24-70: 2.1 Lbs

Just got the 70-200 IS, so I will be hiking this weekend with it to see how it fares. Have no qualms utilizing a monopod with it.

As far as tripod use, the IS has two functional modes, one for panning. If one uses a monopod, the IS is still a valuable comodity. If I find I need the IS ONCE per year, it will be worth it (in the long run). I already see the 2.8 as a necessity for ANYTHING indoors.

The focus feature alone (20D) makes the 2.8 option worth it.

[electra]

Man what a challenge. I was contracted to take photos of our University's graduation this morning. Most of my inside shots were blury and with high ISOs. I was using the 70-200 f/4 lens. That really frustrates me. Even with the use of a tripod. I got some good shots with my other lenses. So at least it's money well spent for hiring me... =(

Anyone know of a good deal with the 2.8L IS?

[tim]

B&H give you a good deal, maybe not the best price but no pressure and you know they're reliable.

I was going to say don't get the Canon 2.8 non-IS, get the Sigma instead, but the IS is a great lens, very sharp and the IS helps a lot.

[electra]

Originally Posted by tim

B&H give you a good deal, maybe not the best price but no pressure and you know they're reliable.

I was going to say don't get the Canon 2.8 non-IS, get the Sigma instead, but the IS is a great lens, very sharp and the IS helps a lot.

They're selling the SIGMA 70-200mm f/2.8 (new DG version, good value) for about the same price as the Canon 70-200mm f/4L. The Canon f/2.8L is about AUD$800 more than both.

Is the SIGMA f/2.8 worth it? Has anyone tried both lens? How does it measure up compared to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L (Non-IS)

Review on the new Sigma DG... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05...a_70-200mm.asp


...

[tim]

You'll find hundreds of discussions on POTN about the non-DG version of this lens, by the reports i've read the DG isn't much different. Also see this article

http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html

I'd buy it over the Canon 2.8 non-IS.

[electra]

Decided!!!

I'm getting the SIGMA new DG =)

Should have it by next week. I read some reviews and threads in this forum and I'm convince. Thanks everyone. Thanks Tim.

Ben


...

[lensmen]

Canon 70-200mm F/4L USM

this is also my next target. seen the F4 as a good walkabout lens.

The F2.8 is tempting but for that 1 stop more, the price *and weight) increases sharply.

1 stop can be easily compensated with an increase in ISO, eg 200 to 400.

Yah, the trade off is more noise or grains, but there is a price for everything isn't it. Weight, $$$, grain / noise.