$1600 to spend

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is my second most used lens (after the 24-70mm f/2.8L). It fits an awful lot of situations. The 135mm f/2.0L is next on my list though.

I thought and had the very same question not long ago.... Ultimately the 2.8 and no IS on the 200 prime made me decide to just get the 70-200.

Thanks for the input. I will be getting the 70-200L before the 19th (Rebates end). Scored $2,000 in the last 2 week at Foxwoods playing a little poker so I have a little cash to spend .

70-200 here I come!!

On 40D, I'd go with the 70-200/2.8 IS.

The two primes are wonderful lenses, and ones I'd want if I were shooting full frame.

But they both lack IS. You will have a tough time hand holding the 200/2.8 in particular. So you will either be upping the ISO and shutter speed, or using a tripod or monopod more often. The 135/2 is a pretty long lens to hand hold on 1.6X crop camera, too.

Much as I prefer primes, this is one place I'd have to say "get the zoom." My own kit is mostly primes, but the 70-200/2.8 IS is one of the three zooms I use and it's a real workhorse. Be aware that it's big and heavy. It balances best on a camera with the vertical/battery grip, which I see you have. Might want to rent and try it before committing. You could rent and try the other lenses, too.

How nice, some friendly people decided to chip in and get you the lens!

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5864918
...BTW, IMHO the 70-200 f/4L IS takes sharper shots than the 2.8 (at the same aperture that is). If you don't need 2.8, get that one and spend the rest on a ultra wide (like the canon 10-22 or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8).

Thanks for comparison. I still would like to get the 2.8. Just never know when I will need it. Plus, it's only money in the long run

Scotty O

TheHoff wrote in post #5865285
How nice, some friendly people decided to chip in and get you the lens!

Funny thing was I about 10 Scotch's in the hole and I was telling others at the table their chips were going to buy my lens for me. I was in a rare form at the table

Scotty O

70-200 IS is great all around lens my first and only L , but 85 L is coming soon!

get the 70-200 2.8 IS, then save up for a 135 f/2 L later.

I might be saving for the 2.8 myself right about now:


Yesterday I went to the iceskating rink and photographed my daughter (and other people).

I used my 100mm f/2.8 macro... here is a snippet from an email I sent to my friend asking a question which is related to this thread (don't want to start ANOTHER thread just for this.

(preface: I went to a shop and tested the 70-200mm f/4L IS to the F/2.8L IS)

...the 2.8 is a bit softer but can be faster. The f/4 is a bit slower but much sharper (but you knew that already). The 70-200 F/2.8 IS is pretty darn heavy (sorta hard to keep steady) it doesn't bother my that much though. What bothered me more was trying to work around the tripod mount (which I could have moved or something, but it was a shop and they guy didn't seem to want me there anyway - ninjas make people nervous).

Onto the iceskating. I took a lot of photos using the 100mm 2.8 macro, to get a feel for what sort of settings I'd need (ie do I need the 2.8 or will the F/4 with boosted ISO do? - I know the macro has no IS, but I was more interested in stopping the action than controlling my hand-shake).

Through my observation, I found it was best if I could boost the shutter to 1/250 (iceskaters move pretty fast - actually, one of my best shots is at 1/320 f/3.2 ISO 1000 - I attached this one - just a screenshot). This meant boosting the ISO to 800 (if I wanted to give f/4 a reasonable chance). Even then, some (manually done) 1/200-250 F/4 shots were very underexposed. Some were OK, depending of lighting.

So basically it comes down to this: the f/4 is sharper and the IS is VERY good (I love it) but that would mean boosting the ISO to 800+ to get decent shutter speeds. Sometimes then the images would be underexposed.

The F/2.8 would let me lower the ISO to 500 and still get a shutter speed of 1/250.

I can actually get OK shots (sharpness wise) SOMETIMES at 1/160 with an iso of 1000+ with it staying within F/4 and above range (in TV mode this is).

I know sharpness and noise control are 2 sides of the same coin (ie you can sharpen and not do too much noise control and it will look OK, you can also do noise control and not sharpen too much and it will look OK. If you do BOTH you get fake looking images (plastic look).

So my question(s) is/are:

What is better?
Sharper and more noise (f/4)?
Less sharp and less noise (f/2.8 )?

ie. Is it easier to correct NOISE or SHARPNESS?

My friends advice:
In the conditions that you are planning to shoot, I think the f/2.8 may be better. Noise is harder to deal with, and when you de-noise a photo, it would almost always reduce sharpness.

For the primary application that you are planning (skating), I think stopping the action is more important than sharpness. In sports photography, you do not need the photo to be tack sharp. Although that would be nice. So larger f/stop is more important. Given the white ice floor, there is a tendancy to underexpose, ie you need as much aperture as you can muscle.


Here are some photos for your perusal - not a scientific test of course

This girl here is NOT my daughter. It was taken at 100mm (macro lens) 1/320 f/3.2 ISO 1000 (yes she is in the air and spinning). It has been cropped and edited a little.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR