Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 Sep 2010 (Thursday) 18:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Want the 70-200mm II but can't justify the cost?

 
Marloon
Goldmember
4,323 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC.
     
Sep 17, 2010 02:10 |  #31

its either that or buy a used 5Dc + used 70-200 mark I. The photos will be different if you use a 40D + 70-200mm mark II. Just having an FF brings out the quality of the mark I.

Think print.


I'm MARLON

Former Canon Platinum CPS member

5DII • 24L • 35L • 50L • 85L • 135L • 200LIS

Wordpress Blog (external link)Youtube Channel (external link)Twitter (external link)Gear List (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Overread
Goldmember
Avatar
2,218 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Mar 2010
     
Sep 17, 2010 03:06 |  #32

Kooper wrote in post #10923115 (external link)
Well, I like to take photos outdoors a lot, usually on trails and such, I don't have a good tripod ($20 walmart thing). Would want to use it when walking about and want to take a picture of subjects I can't approach, probably wildlife on trails while walking. I also go to the city a lot, so if I can find a reason to use it then, there as well; but the idea is outdoors.

Based on your intent to be outside snapping at more wild subjects I would say that a plain 70-200mm lens isn't going to cut it for birds or animals unless you are very lucky and also have good fieldcraft methods. For generalist shooting 70-200mm range is a good range for landscapes, close up shots (esp if you throw in a set of extension tubes) as well as more generalist subjects.

You will however have a need for something longer for the wildlife ideas. Any of the 70-200mm L lenses will take a 1.4 teleconverter and still perform very well, but that still won't get you the most ideal range. Idealy you'll be wanting to push longer and that means a 2*TC and that enters a tricky area.

Firstly only the f2.8 lenses will take the 2*TC and retain autofocus, since canon camera bodies (aside from the 1D line) stop AF after the max aperture of the lens goes beyond f5.6 - and with a 2*TC you lose two stops of light - on an f2.8 lens that gives you f5.6 whilst on the f4 it gives you an f8 lens. Even if you trick the camera into letting you AF once you're at f8 the reliability of the AF drops very significantly.
AF aside there is also the image quality drop - for myself I found that the 2*TC on an original 70-200mm f2.8 IS L lens wasn't really up to my standard - it works yes and is good in a pinch when you have nothing else, but it just wasn't something that I found I used a lot because of its poorer performance. I used the 1.4TC however all the time without worries.

Now (and here things get expensive) the new M2 70-200mm f2.8 IS L lens however can take a 2*TC and retain good image quality - infact its image quality is comparable to that of the 100-400mm lens at the 400mm mark. (see here for example and comparison shots: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=869226 )

That of course is an expensive route all at once and if you are purely after a long ranged zoom you would be better served getting a 100-400mm lens for its 400mm mark. Do be aware there is some variation in quality control on these lenses, its far better than it was upon its release, but people still get softer copies (or more correctly they get copies that are more out of sync with their camera body than ideal). This can be corrected but can be a pain whilst you get things corrected.
If however you feel the need for a 70-200mm lens that will afford you a nice wide max aperture of f2.8 then aiming for the M2 might be expensive but will give you all that you desire in this area - that along with a 2*TC (note there are new TCs coming out in christmas, high price tag on them, but they also give you improved overall optical and AF performance)


Tools of the trade: Canon 400D, Canon 7D, Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS, Canon MPE 65mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro, Tamron 24-70mm f2.4, Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6, Raynox DCR 250, loads of teleconverters and a flashy thingy too
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Sep 17, 2010 07:56 as a reply to  @ Overread's post |  #33

Unless you KNOW you need f/2.8 (and if you're asking, you're not sure), just buy the f/4 IS.

Much lighter and has incredible image quality.

If you decide later to upgrade, you shouldn't take too much of a hit on selling the f/4 IS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nemesis47
Senior Member
Avatar
358 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: WI, USA
     
Sep 17, 2010 08:01 |  #34

Marloon wrote in post #10925069 (external link)
For your style, a 70-200 Mark II would definitely fit the bill. Save your pennies and don't buy an alternative. I'll just drive you nuts with a whole bunch of "what-if" questions.

I actually see it the other way - An MKII is not really the lens that you want to carry on trails or walk-around in the city. Of course there are people who CAN, but judging by the comments on this forum and my own personal experience it is VERY heavy for such a use. Chances are you will leave it home most of the time.


70D | 50D | Tamron 17-50 VC | Canon 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/4L IS | 100 2.8 | 100-400 L | YN560ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dolina
Goldmember
Avatar
4,880 posts
Gallery: 319 photos
Likes: 310
Joined Mar 2009
Location: 34109
     
Sep 17, 2010 08:08 |  #35

Are you gonna use this to make money or as a play thing? I'd upgrade to the II if it'll make making money easier.


Visit my Flickr (external link), Facebook (external link) & 500px (external link) and see my photos. :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Sep 17, 2010 08:13 |  #36

I have the F4IS and do not lust over the 2.8MKII's IQ. I do, sometimes, wish I had an extra stop to use.

Then I think about the > 21 hrs I spent over 3 days shooting a music festival and think, naaa. I don''t need the extra weight, on a camera or in the bag. So I bought a second body, instead, and wil be selling my 300 F4IS.

To the OP.... from what you are saying, get the F4 IS although it is too short for wildlife, imho.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Sep 17, 2010 08:20 |  #37

egordon99 wrote in post #10925827 (external link)
Unless you KNOW you need f/2.8 (and if you're asking, you're not sure), just buy the f/4 IS.

^^^^
This. The f4 IS is a tremendous lens in every respect. My suggestion would be to buy it, use it, build your skills, and then, when you KNOW you really need the f2.8, sell the f4 IS to fund it. I used to have a f2.8 non-IS and eventually sold it. The weight was a factor - I just didn't enjoy carrying it around - as was the lack of IS. But also, I found I rarely used it at f2.8. The f4 IS has proved to be just fine for the type of shooting I do (outdoor sports, kids, dogs, family outings, hiking on trails, backyard wildlife), and is much lighter and easier to carry around.


Gear: Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 24-105L f4, Canon 70-300L, Canon 60 macro f/2.8, Speedlite 580 EXII, 2x AB800

Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dimitris
Senior Member
315 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2006
     
Sep 17, 2010 08:32 |  #38

Just wait a bit and prices will go lower. Its one of the most popular lenses so I expect to see used ones out there soon too. Also for trail hiking I would stay with the f4 series. I had the f2.8 non IS version it it was becoming easily unbearable after walking around for a couple of hours.


http://www.dimitriszer​vas.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Sep 17, 2010 08:37 |  #39

ceegee wrote in post #10925933 (external link)
The f4 IS has proved to be just fine for the type of shooting I do (outdoor sports, kids, dogs, family outings, hiking on trails, backyard wildlife), and is much lighter and easier to carry around.

The f/4 IS also works for weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, and other indoor events (with appropriate use of flash of course ;) )




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JelleVerherstraeten
Goldmember
Avatar
2,440 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
     
Sep 17, 2010 12:54 |  #40

I have this lens about a half year now and it's the most step forward in my carreer. This lens does it all and is in my eyes a must have for every kit. If you want a lens in that reach, it's the best lens to have.

Or you can spend money on the 85L+135L+200L and loose more money. Ok, it's not a fair equation, but I really liking this lens :D.

If you buy it know, you'll have the best for a very long time. If you buy for instance the 70-200mm IS f/4, you're going to like this lens, but if you need the 2.8, you'll regret it that you didn't buy the 2.8 version.


-Jelle l Gear l Website (external link) l

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aboss3
Goldmember
Avatar
2,616 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: LOS ANGELES
     
Sep 17, 2010 12:58 |  #41
bannedPermanent ban

egordon99 wrote in post #10926028 (external link)
The f/4 IS also works for weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, and other indoor events (with appropriate use of flash of course ;) )

Well that's the whole point - try to eliminate flash to avoid disturbing the subjects ;)


Gear | My gear is changing faster than I can update the signature
VoyageEyewear (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Sep 17, 2010 13:12 |  #42

aboss3 wrote in post #10927516 (external link)
Well that's the whole point - try to eliminate flash to avoid disturbing the subjects ;)

In most evening receptions, f/2.8 would not be useful without flash. Even f/1.4 requires me to jack up the ISO to insane levels.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kooper
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
160 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: New Jersey
     
Sep 17, 2010 13:40 |  #43

I think the discussed weight factor would indeed be a big point for me as well, I agree.

Thanks again to everyone, I know it's a bit of a debate in here but I'm getting some really good input/opinions, I appreciate it.


Stuff: 40D+BG-E2N, 430EX, 85mm f/1.8, EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, 70-200 F4L IS
I'm always looking for advice, please check out my Flickr. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nemesis47
Senior Member
Avatar
358 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: WI, USA
     
Sep 17, 2010 13:50 |  #44

cost(70-200 f4 IS L + 135 f2 L) < cost (70-200 f2.8 mk2 L)
cost(70-200 f4 IS L + 200 f2.8 L) < cost (70-200 f2.8 mk2 L)

Replace "cost" with "weight", those lines are still true.. just a thought.

Most, if not all, agree that mk2 has better IQ than f4 IS. But most would also agree that the difference is nearly negligible.


70D | 50D | Tamron 17-50 VC | Canon 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/4L IS | 100 2.8 | 100-400 L | YN560ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kooper
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
160 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: New Jersey
     
Sep 18, 2010 03:50 |  #45

The f/4 IS is sounding much better, I don't think 2.8 is crucial just nice.


Stuff: 40D+BG-E2N, 430EX, 85mm f/1.8, EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, 70-200 F4L IS
I'm always looking for advice, please check out my Flickr. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,922 views & 0 likes for this thread
Want the 70-200mm II but can't justify the cost?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
872 guests, 258 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.