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 06 Aug 2013 (Tuesday) 08:35
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

adding a 70-200 II?

 
ceriltheblade
Goldmember
2,484 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2007
Location: middle east
     
Aug 06, 2013 08:35 |  #1

hey all

i am in a type of dilemma
i have the below lenses and I am generally happy with them
i do sometimes miss not having the extra stop of the 2.8 in most of f4 choices, but usually I make-do.

with that said, there are times that i wonder whether the 70-200II would be a more valuable addition to my lens collection.

so my pro/con list

pro:
excellent IQ
f2.8
my f4 sometime acts up sporadically

con:
heavy for hiking with the kids and wife
ridicule from the kids - geez dad...do you you have to use a bazooka as a camera? (no, for them, it NEVER gets old)
for $2200 is one stop REALLY worth it? I mean....REALLY?

so for those of you who have moved from the f4IS to the 2.8II, do you miss the size of the f4? do you get shots that you otherwise wouldn;t have gotten withthe f4? I am not sure which way I am trying to convince myself yet...so your REASONED help would be really appreciated!

i had originally thought to save for the canon version of the 14-24 f2.8 - but I see that it is more and more a pipe dream....


7D/5dIII
50 1.8 II, MP-E65, 85 II, 100 IS
8-15 FE, 10-22, 16-35 IS, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS, 100-400 ii, tamron 28-75 2.8
600 ex-rt, 055xproB/488rc2/Sirui k40x, kenko extens tubes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
geparry
Member
80 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2005
Location: Salt Lake City
     
Aug 06, 2013 09:17 |  #2

I was in a similar situation. I just returned from a trip where we did some challenging hikes and I lugged along my 70-200II, 24-105 and 5d markIII. It was a very heavy load but I am used to being a pack mule. For me, there is no question about the stunning beauty that I obtain from the 70-200. I switched back and forth with the 24-105 and after looking through the photos, the 70-200 has distinct advantages in quality that especially showed up when I was shooting in medium to low light. The quality difference narrows when you have good light but is still there. I decided that from now on I am using the 70-200 as my primary lens in spite of the weight

I just sold my 70-200 f4 (non IS) and although I enjoyed the photos it took, they really don't have the same quality as my new lens. One caveat is that the IS version might be a bit better than the non IS version. I was also very fortunate to buy the 70-200II barely used for $1700 and was thus able to justify the purchase. If money is not a big concern, then you would probably be happy with the lens. I would not buy it if it were to stretch your budget.

Regarding the one extra stop, for me the advantage is in the additional autofocus boost and for really low light. Having a 5d III has resulted in not needing to worry about low light as much and instead having to worry about too narrow a depth of field. Ironically enough, I found that I like setting the aperture at 4.0 for general shooting because when you fill the frame with your subject, the depth of field is significantly different than with the APS-C. However, when I have time to carefully compose the shot or when I am not filling the frame, I have used the f2.8 for great effect. With a 7d the extra stop will be more significant for lower light, your center focus point will be more accurate, and you will likely find yourself using f2.8 most of the time because your depth of filed isn't going to be as sensitive to mistakes.


Canon 5D MarkIII 24-105 F4 L IS | 100 F2.8 macro| 85mm 1.8 | 70-200 F2.8 L IS MK II | TS-E 40mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.4 | 20mm 2.8 | 300mm 4.0 L IS
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drzenitram
Senior Member
824 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Aug 06, 2013 09:28 |  #3

Sell the 70-200 f4is and you can get the sigma OS for the money you sold it for. Voila!

I love my sigma 70-200 2.8 OS so much more than I ever liked my 70-200 f4 IS.


| Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
notastockpikr
Senior Member
414 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Canada
     
Aug 06, 2013 09:44 |  #4

When I contemplated which 70-200 to buy, the decision process didn't take long. I got the 70-200 II and I rarely use it because of the weight of the lens. Don't get me wrong, it's a very sharp lens and for indoor use, it's the one to get. But....if you have a gripped 5D III and the 70-200 II attached, you will notice the weight when hiking for any distance.

Now I'm looking to buy a good used 70-200 4 IS and probably keep the 70-200 II but if I was doing it all over again knowing what I know now, I would buy the 70-200 4 IS and the 70-300L for the price of the 70-200 II.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,136 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6197
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 06, 2013 10:02 |  #5

notastockpikr wrote in post #16185453 (external link)
When I contemplated which 70-200 to buy, the decision process didn't take long. I got the 70-200 II and I rarely use it because of the weight of the lens. Don't get me wrong, it's a very sharp lens and for indoor use, it's the one to get. But....if you have a gripped 5D III and the 70-200 II attached, you will notice the weight when hiking for any distance.

Now I'm looking to buy a good used 70-200 4 IS and probably keep the 70-200 II but if I was doing it all over again knowing what I know now, I would buy the 70-200 4 IS and the 70-300L for the price of the 70-200 II.

everytime I think of 70-200, I just remember 100-400 and how heavy that sucker was.... no thanks. The tamron 70-200 VC looks to be the better buy at this point, but also too heavy.

I'de much rather have the 70-300L for versatility and 135L for bokeh machine.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceriltheblade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,484 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2007
Location: middle east
     
Aug 06, 2013 10:09 |  #6

thanks for the answers. i don't plan on selling my f4IS whatsoever for the times that I want a lighter lens anyway (notastockpikr makes the point here quite nicely) - I have the funds to do that - and if I really wanted to get rid of the lens - I can always give it to my brother.....(as I mentioned in the text of the question: "adding a 70-200II")
***
i am open to more opinions please!!!


7D/5dIII
50 1.8 II, MP-E65, 85 II, 100 IS
8-15 FE, 10-22, 16-35 IS, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS, 100-400 ii, tamron 28-75 2.8
600 ex-rt, 055xproB/488rc2/Sirui k40x, kenko extens tubes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tigerkn
Goldmember
4,067 posts
Likes: 156
Joined Feb 2009
Location: CA
     
Aug 06, 2013 10:32 |  #7

love or hate
hot or cold
weight or quality
I love it for wedding b/c of the flexibility + IS + IQ. If you do not shoot event/wedding, there are many other choices which are lighter and smaller instead. Please keep in mind that it is ~3.5 lbs, your legs and back will hate you from the middle of your hiking trip. My legs and back hate me after every wedding :)


Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link) | Gears (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
geparry
Member
80 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2005
Location: Salt Lake City
     
Aug 06, 2013 10:33 |  #8

I think it might come down to your willingness to carry weight on your hikes. Some would probably think I am crazy, I once took a 40D with the 300 F4 and 24-105 lenses backpacking in the Rocky mountains. For me the extra weight just doesn't bother me that much (in fact I look at it giving me a better workout), and the extra effort is paid off with higher quality photos.


Canon 5D MarkIII 24-105 F4 L IS | 100 F2.8 macro| 85mm 1.8 | 70-200 F2.8 L IS MK II | TS-E 40mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.4 | 20mm 2.8 | 300mm 4.0 L IS
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,620 posts
Gallery: 53 photos
Likes: 538
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Aug 06, 2013 11:10 |  #9

I agree with both posts above. Its a great lens for event shooters but IMO using it for casual family photography is a pain. I loved the image quality but taking it out was always a chore and most of the time it stood home.

If size/weight is a none issue you will love it.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommy1957
Goldmember
1,288 posts
Joined Apr 2013
     
Aug 06, 2013 11:20 |  #10

drzenitram wrote in post #16185413 (external link)
Sell the 70-200 f4is and you can get the sigma OS for the money you sold it for. Voila!

I love my sigma 70-200 2.8 OS so much more than I ever liked my 70-200 f4 IS.

I never had the Canon f/4, but I really enjoy my Sigma 2.8 OS. The new Tamron VC is reportedly better, but costs 50% more than the Sigma.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ElectronGuru
Senior Member
Avatar
427 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Oregon
     
Aug 06, 2013 11:34 |  #11

If the goal is the stop and you only need it for specific outings, supplement with a 135 or 200 2.8

If the goal is IQ, nothing else will do

But are you making this choice for you or them?


"Light is the paint, lenses are brush, sensors are the canvas"
6D | 100L Macro | 50L | 24L TSE
Builder of custom flashlights, OVEREADY.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
carguy4471
Senior Member
464 posts
Joined Sep 2009
     
Aug 06, 2013 11:42 |  #12

I had the f4 non-is, loved the image quality and the size. Sold it and got the 2.8is II, image quality is mind blowing. Yup, it's big and heavy, and worth carrying the extra weight to me. With a quality strap I don't notice the weight. I am only burdened by it if it's in my bag with three other lenses. If it's the only lens I need, or I'm only carrying my 17-50 and 70-200 I don't really mind it. The lens is bloody amazing by any measure and I'm happy to endure the size and weight for the output I get. I've never once looked at the photos I've taken with it and thought of how much of a pain it was to carry all day.


Duane
GEAR - FLICKr (external link) - SmugMug (external link):p

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RickRandhawa
Senior Member
599 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Chandler, AZ
     
Aug 06, 2013 11:53 |  #13

I've owned the 70-200MKII twice (Once when it first came out, then again after I got back into photography after selling off all my gear). I now own the 70-200 f/4IS. For me, the price, size, and weight is just not worth the one stop difference. Don't get me wrong, if there was an IQ improvement I'd suck it up, but there isn't.

IQ was the reason I was hesitant to buy the 70-200 f/4IS in the first place. People always said the IQ between these two lenses was identical, but when I looked in the lens sample thread, it just didn't look to be the case. After getting the f/4IS, I realize the image quality really is identical. It turns out the quality of pictures in the sample threads have more to do with the photographers who own each lens, rather than the lens itself.

Unless you are going to be using it for concerts, shows, kid's performances...i wouldn't do it.


6D l 24-70L II l 85L II l 70-200/4L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceriltheblade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,484 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2007
Location: middle east
     
Aug 06, 2013 11:55 |  #14

willingness is not the question - but I do question (at least a little bit)
whether or not the quality of the pics of the 70-200 II vs 70-200 f4IS
at f4, 5.6, 7.1 8 is better.... (clearly at f2.8 it *IS* the winner!)
and worth the carrying the extra weight.
I too don't mind being the "mule" of the family.... (i usually am) :)
:)


7D/5dIII
50 1.8 II, MP-E65, 85 II, 100 IS
8-15 FE, 10-22, 16-35 IS, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS, 100-400 ii, tamron 28-75 2.8
600 ex-rt, 055xproB/488rc2/Sirui k40x, kenko extens tubes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
phoomanchew
Member
Avatar
65 posts
Joined May 2012
Location: Greater Cincinnati Area
     
Aug 06, 2013 12:30 as a reply to  @ ceriltheblade's post |  #15

Thanks for this thread. I have taken some good information from each post.

I too am looking at upgrading my 70-200 f4 (non-IS) to either the f4 IS or possible the f2.8 II IS. I really want an IS version and I am kicking myself for not buying one in the first place...

I like shooting is natural/low light situations and the f4 struggles at times with that. I am thinking the f2.8 would help more for those situations... I just wish the price was not so stupid high...


Canon 7D | BG-E7 grip | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | EF 70-200mm f/4.0L | 430EX II Speedlite | RRS TVC-34L | RRS BH-55 LR

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

5,170 views & 0 likes for this thread
adding a 70-200 II?
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 is lf_alex
1053 guests, 318 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.