So the white baseball bat is not for me (70-200 f/4), now what?

I just returned from a good trip, having taken the 40D, a 17-40 f/4L, a 70-200 f/4 non-IS and a 28-135 (unused).

I was very happy with the 17-40 but the 70-200 went on my nerves. Not long enough for about everything I wanted to get at range. Not short enough for portraits of my friends without walking more than the restaurant is deep. Not fast enough in low light with the 40D. Furthermore I don't like that it has constant length, most of my bags and my backpack don't take it with the body on. It is too long to fit my backpack upright even without body. Finally I don't like that it is white and draws attention.

Now what?

There is the 70-300mm L lens that is still white but retracts. There is the non-L but of course I wouldn't like to compromise picture quality too much.

I'd like to try something Tamron just because I never have but it needs to be FF compatible (have a 1D2 I didn't take to the trip). I could imagine closing off my DSLR set at 135mm and do longer zooms with a Panasonic micro 4/3th. Of course that opens another can of worms.

Anything springs to mind?

It seems like if you want a better performer for low light, you'd need to look for a f/2.8. You can upgrade yours to a f2.8, f2.8IS, f2.8IS II. Any of those would work better/faster in low light - but it's the same focal range, much bigger, heavier, and still white.

For black, you can look at the sigma and tamron 70-200 2.8. They are still a lot bigger than what you have, but smaller than the other 3 canon L's suggested above. The Tamron doesn't seem to have a lot of good reviews. The Sigma is a good candidate - IF you can get a good copy.

I currently have the 70-300 non-L and it's a good lens, very compact, light, easy to carry. Not the image quality of an L...and won't do well in low light since it's a f4-5.6.

Maybe what you need is a good zoom lens or a TC for your current one to get the reach you want. Then get a good prime for low light? Otherwise, the best combination would be one of the 70-200 f2.8L's...

How long have you had the 70-200? Maybe you just need more time with it. I have a 100-400 but just added a 70-200 f/4 and love it. Its so much lighter than the 100-400 but doubles the reach of my 24-105. 70-200 is one of the most popular focal lengths for full frame cameras but maybe it doesn't work as well with the crop factor.

Try the Lens Baby...

I hear that they are coming out with a telephoto version in a fuchsia color. You may like that better than the Canon "white"...

BTW: The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is my most used glass...

RPCrowe wrote in post #12230522
I hear that they are coming out with a telephoto version in a fuchsia color. You may like that better than the Canon "white"...

BTW: The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is my most used glass...

lol

I think you should look for 2 lenses to replace the 70-200.. one that will go wider, the other longer. The shorter would be faster than f4.

How about the EF 70-300 IS? Not faster, but longer and less noticeable.

Magic drain pipe is less noticeable (80-200 f2.8L)

You're just going to have to accept that fast + long = big + heavy

mike_d wrote in post #12230511
How long have you had the 70-200? Maybe you just need more time with it. I have a 100-400 but just added a 70-200 f/4 and love it. Its so much lighter than the 100-400 but doubles the reach of my 24-105. 70-200 is one of the most popular focal lengths for full frame cameras but maybe it doesn't work as well with the crop factor.

Yeah, I think I need to mess with the 70-200mm on the 1d2 for a while. Maybe that works better for me. But the combo looks massive and fits no bag except my stealth 650.

I'm really not attached to trying to zoom in on a 1.6 crop right now. I could see me going 1.3 or FF stopping at 135mm max and instead zoom with a non-DSLR system in the future. Or get a cheap 300mm for 1.6 crop and use it as "documentation only".

uOpt wrote in post #12230307
I just returned from a good trip, having taken the 40D, a 17-40 f/4L, a 70-200 f/4 non-IS and a 28-135 (unused).

I was very happy with the 17-40 but the 70-200 went on my nerves. Not long enough for about everything I wanted to get at range. Not short enough for portraits of my friends without walking more than the restaurant is deep. Not fast enough in low light with the 40D. Furthermore I don't like that it has constant length, most of my bags and my backpack don't take it with the body on. It is too long to fit my backpack upright even without body. Finally I don't like that it is white and draws attention.

Now what?

There is the 70-300mm L lens that is still white but retracts. There is the non-L but of course I wouldn't like to compromise picture quality too much.

I'd like to try something Tamron just because I never have but it needs to be FF compatible (have a 1D2 I didn't take to the trip). I could imagine closing off my DSLR set at 135mm and do longer zooms with a Panasonic micro 4/3th. Of course that opens another can of worms.

Anything springs to mind?

I am with you. I am no fan of the f/4 non IS version. You mention most of the reason, and I can list a few more. Despite how stella the optic is, this lens is just not verstile, specially on crop body. I would prefer 55-250 or 70-300IS over it

I love my 70-200 f/4 IS, the IS is amazing, the AF is fast, accurate, and unlike anything I'd used before. It was as intimidating to me as it was others at first. The problem? 70-200 does suck on a crop sensor! I decided I liked the lens so much I just had to go full frame to make the FL work, and now it does

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 for crops and 28-75 are both great lenses at good prices. This doesnt help with reach though. Maybe a 1.4 teleconverter is what the doctor ordered to help with that?

200 f/2.8 L w/ 1.4x TC of your choice.

Add a 100 f/2 for the gap between your 17-40 and 200 f/2.8 L.

you say the 70-200mm wasn't wide enough for you...yet you didn't use the 28-135mm?...

you want to try tamron, you want something black, more reach, stabilization...go for the tamron 70-300VC

uOpt wrote in post #12230307
I was very happy with the 17-40 but the 70-200 went on my nerves. Not long enough for about everything I wanted to get at range. Not short enough for portraits of my friends without walking more than the restaurant is deep. Not fast enough in low light with the 40D.

This is how I feel about the 70-200 f/4. It's a great lens, but not a very practical focal length on a crop camera. I personally prefer to carry a 50/1.4 and 100/2 with a 1.4x TC.

That's easy to fix - get a new bag.

If someone notices the color of your lens, then that means they were already looking at you. Something else drew their attention in the first place.

the off white color designates a luxury lens which draws extra attentions whereas a black lens could be a cheapo lens unless one studies it more closely

If you want longer range and small package, you might like the 70-300mm DO. Its not the fastest, but it will let you travel small and have extended range. Its black too.

Why didn't you use the 28-135? IMO it's very underrated and gets a bad reputation just bc its a "kit" lens. Why would you choose to use a 70-200 in a restaraunt? Just sounds like you're expecting too much from your "white baseball bat".