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 08 Oct 2014 (Wednesday) 11:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Looking upgrade from 70-200 f/4 to what?

 
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,171 posts
Gallery: 263 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 7898
Joined Dec 2006
     
Oct 08, 2014 20:35 |  #16

If you do portraits get the 135L instead




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Thorsten
Member
Avatar
184 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 43
Joined Feb 2014
Location: Santa Cruz, California
     
Oct 08, 2014 22:51 |  #17

If you just need the IQ and not f/2.8 (i.e. not shooting sports in dimly lit conditions), go for that f/4 IS. This lens is crazy good. I recently moved here from Nikon and had their version before. Even though Nikon's is a much newer model, it can't hold a candle to the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. I was quite surprised.


Thorsten (external link)
Canon 5D3, 24 IS, 35L, 50/1.8 STM, 85/1.2Lii, 100L, 135L, 200/2.8L, 400/5.6L, 16-35/4L, 24-70/4L, 70-200/4L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2791
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Oct 08, 2014 23:02 |  #18

I'm on my second copy now....

and I'm fixing to sell mine. Once you live at 1.4-2 anything F4 is boring.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Myboostedgst
Goldmember
Avatar
1,911 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 661
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
     
Oct 08, 2014 23:26 as a reply to  @ Talley's post |  #19

Two things to consider. 1) the 2.8 weighs so much kore than the f4. It doesn't seem like it, but after 10 mins you notice it so much. 2) my 70-200 2.8 IS was no better optically than my f4 non IS. The f4 IS that I tested in store blew them both away.

Also, I agree with the 135L recommendation for portraits.


Andrew | Midwest Automotive (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
boywonder27
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
228 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2005
     
Oct 08, 2014 23:48 |  #20

I got the f/4 IS USM tonight $800, looks to be in real good condition. No Hood tho. I ordered on of ebay $6.

Im also selling my 24-105, and actually think Ill use the money for 135L


Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 6D
Canon 50mm f/1.8 - Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS USM - Canon 24-70 f/2.8 - Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Canon 85mm f/1.8, Canon 17-40 f/4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,414 posts
Gallery: 222 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4588
Joined Dec 2008
     
Oct 09, 2014 00:04 as a reply to  @ boywonder27's post |  #21

^ Congrats. Wonder what happened to the hood.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paulstw
Senior Member
827 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2012
     
Oct 09, 2014 03:29 |  #22

I actually have the F/4 IS and will be going for the 2.8 MKii ( I had this before) as soon as I can. On review from my shots with the 2.8 II from last year and the current F/4 IS there's more than just IQ to drool over. Colours and contrast seemed to be better.

I'm a better photographer now than I was when I had the 2.8 and didn't appreciate it on crop sensor, but now I have FF I think it would be the best decision to get it. Helps the AF do what it was meant to as well in my opinion.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrscls
Goldmember
3,056 posts
Gallery: 139 photos
Likes: 1378
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Oct 09, 2014 04:35 |  #23

boywonder27 wrote in post #17202782 (external link)
I got the f/4 IS USM tonight $800, looks to be in real good condition. No Hood tho. I ordered on of ebay $6.

Im also selling my 24-105, and actually think Ill use the money for 135L

I sold my 70-200 f2.8 IS II due to the weight and bulk. Replaced with 135 L and 70-200- f/4 IS, which make a great combo. I think you will be very happy with that setup along with your other lenses in your sig.


Nikon Z6, 20mm f/1.8 S, 35mm f/1.8 S, 50mm f/1.8 S, 85mm f/1.8 S, 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR, Flashpoint Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,266 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 363
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Oct 09, 2014 07:11 |  #24

boywonder27 wrote in post #17202782 (external link)
I got the f/4 IS USM tonight $800, looks to be in real good condition. No Hood tho. I ordered on of ebay $6.

Im also selling my 24-105, and actually think Ill use the money for 135L

I have that same combo -- 70-200 f/4 IS and 135L -- and really like it. The 70-200 f/4 is smaller and lighter (and less expensive) than the f/2.8 version, while the 135L gives you the larger aperture when you need it (in a smaller package, too). Most of the time f/4 is enough for what I shoot.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Glenn ­ NK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,630 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Victoria, BC
     
Oct 09, 2014 10:36 |  #25

I'll be the first to admit that the f/2.8 can challenge the wrists on occasion. And considering that volume varies with the square of the diameter, the f/2.8 takes up a fair bit more room in a bag.

But the IS in the Mark II f/2.8 is about as good as it gets for hand-holding, and the focusing speed (on my really "hot" 5DII) is very good.

Everything has pros/cons - it's all about trade-offs.


When did voluptuous become voluminous?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
5,474 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 601
Joined Dec 2010
     
Oct 09, 2014 16:00 |  #26

boywonder27 wrote in post #17202782 (external link)
I got the f/4 IS USM tonight $800, looks to be in real good condition. No Hood tho. I ordered on of ebay $6.

Im also selling my 24-105, and actually think Ill use the money for 135L

Let us know how you like it.

The 70-200 f/4L IS is my go-to lens in most situations. If I have room to work - even if it means putting my back against the wall - that's the lens I'm going to use.

f/4 is plenty for most things I shoot, especially portraiture. It's rare that I want to shoot a portrait in any wider aperture than that.

I haven't used the f/2.8 IS II. I'm sure it's excellent - for twice the price. In the meantime, subjective concerns such as "color rendition and contrast" can usually be resolved with appropriate post-processing.

I'd like to give the 135L and the 85L a try, too, but right now they wouldn't return the investment, they'd just be toys without any business justification.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,171 posts
Gallery: 263 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 7898
Joined Dec 2006
     
Oct 09, 2014 16:11 |  #27

nathancarter wrote in post #17203923 (external link)
Let us know how you like it.

The 70-200 f/4L IS is my go-to lens in most situations. If I have room to work - even if it means putting my back against the wall - that's the lens I'm going to use.

f/4 is plenty for most things I shoot, especially portraiture. It's rare that I want to shoot a portrait in any wider aperture than that.

I haven't used the f/2.8 IS II. I'm sure it's excellent - for twice the price. In the meantime, subjective concerns such as "color rendition and contrast" can usually be resolved with appropriate post-processing.

I'd like to give the 135L and the 85L a try, too, but right now they wouldn't return the investment, they'd just be toys without any business justification.

If you do any outside portraiture there is a business case to be make for the 135L. The 70-200 f4 IS is a great lens but the wow factor from the 135L will make a differnce in portrait work. My 70-200 f4 IS only comes out to play when the 135L wont fit.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,426 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
     
Oct 09, 2014 19:20 |  #28

nathancarter wrote in post #17203923 (external link)
they'd just be toys without any business justification.

Times like this make me really glad I am just an amateur.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
phantelope
Goldmember
Avatar
1,889 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 40
Joined Sep 2008
Location: NorCal
     
Oct 09, 2014 19:47 |  #29

I love my f4 IS, when I bought it I looked at both, the f4 an f2.8. Almost double the weight, larger size (i.e would not fit in my bag) and a lot more money, I went with the f4. Never once wished it would go below f4, not sure I even ever used mine at f4. Unless you have a particular need for wider open, like often shooting at dark events etc, it's - IMO - not worth the extra money. And weight and size.


40D, 5D3, a bunch of lenses and other things :cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Myboostedgst
Goldmember
Avatar
1,911 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 661
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
     
Oct 09, 2014 21:17 as a reply to  @ phantelope's post |  #30

Shooting at 2.8 is nice. But my thought was, if I really wanted even less DOF than f4, why stop at 2.8? Why not get something even faster, hence the 135L that everyone (including myself) reccomends. The 135L competes damn close to the mk II at 20mm and 2.8, and some say even better for portraiture. Chances are that I will be able to use a 135 when I need that wider aperture, so it would win over the 2.8. Add in the fact that I can own both lenses for the same cost as the mk II, I find it the best option.

Only downside that I could see to that is if you often shoot in low/dim light and need to be able to adjust focal length quickly (weddings and sports).


Andrew | Midwest Automotive (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)

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

4,640 views & 0 likes for this thread
Looking upgrade from 70-200 f/4 to what?
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 henry65
837 guests, 248 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.