Looking for a lighter, long lens

jayvuu wrote in post #13506561
+1 for the 70-200mm f4L IS. i love mine.

now I can see how frustrating it is when posters don't read the original post. yes, I loved mine also. after upgrading (?) to the 2.8II, I'm looking for a light alternative that 1) won't make me want to sell the 2.8II or 2) have to sell the 2.8II for cash.

If you're truly a "glass snob" (your words), you might have a hard time with the 70-300. It's definitely lighter, smaller and less obtrusive, but it does get (just a bit) soft on the long end. I've never owned an f/4 non-IS so I can't directly compare the images, but I know it's said to be a very sharp lens. The trade-off is losing 100mm of FL and IS (and I agree with you that IS is important on a long lens). I guess in the end it all comes down to which trade-off is more acceptable to you. The 70-300 definitely won't make you want to sell the 70-200 MkII (notice both in my sig).

The 200mm f/2.8 prime is an interesting option. Such a great piece of glass for a good price, nice and small too. I've tried to make excuses to pick one up for the same reason you are, something smaller than the 70-200 MKII that I have, I just haven't done it yet.

If you think you'll use the smaller lens enough, I think it'd be worth finding one at a good price.

I just spent a day out with family with 55-250IS as my only lens and it worked out perfectly. I am using this lens more and more as a walkaround when I am outside. The range can't be beat, and it's very light.

Seems like most people say the 70-200 F4 IS is the way to go and others say the non IS is great also. I am struggling with the same decision. I am not sure if the IS is worth another 600. For low light indoors I have my little nifty fifty, but I am not sure how the non IS 70-200 will fair at twilight times getting that color after the sun has set and those colors come out. I would hat to have to revert to my kit lens to get the shots that are under 1/125th since that seems to be my lowest shutter I can shoot at and get very similar results as with a slightly slower shutter with IS on in my kit lens.

I see some shot swith the 70-200 F4 IS that look amazing and others that look not so amazing so it is a lot to do with the lumpy organic bit behind the lens.

300mm f/4L IS is longer FL and lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mk2. Great image quality too. I found mine for $850, yeah it's a little more than your $600 but it is a great lens.

Looks like some people don't see that you shoot FF.

I have both the 70-200/2.8 IS 1 and the 70-300 IS. I love the 70-200... who wouldn't. Would never give it up. I have the 300 primarily for more reach, not because it's lighter or smaller. It's definitely lighter and smaller, but just not THAT much so. About 3/4 the length and about half the weight:

http://www.largiader.c​om …re.php?lens1=11​2&lens2=78

It gets as long as the 70-200 when you zoom it, so you don't avoid the 'swinging the long lens' factor.

And of course it's as slow (4~5.6) as every other 70-300. But you already have a fast lens for when you need it. In exchange you get less weight and more reach, while retaining IS, along with pretty good optics. I bought mine used for $225 or something like that.

Listen... 70-200@f/4....nice (INVALID EMAIL) pixels. vs. 70-300 ok pixels.. it really is up to you. The 70-200 is a world-class lens........no doubt!!! If you want to pay your money and see your minute differences is up to you. Yes.... the 70-200 is best....BAR NONE... seriously, if other's complain, it's NOT the lens..this is the best glass in the industry!!

I did a quick bokeh ball test between the 70-200mm f/4L and the f/2.8L IS mk2 last weekend. Pictures were taken with the camera body mounted to the tripod, not the lens. You mentioned the f/4L but seem to cringe at not having IS, but with the 5D2 you have plenty of ISO performance to allow hand holding. Also, you'll most likely be walking around using the lens you buy in the daylight, right? Plenty of light available to matter whether you have IS or not.

5D mk2 with 70-200mm f/4L and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mk2 (IS turned off)
70mm, MFD @ 1.2 meters, manual settings for same exposure, I don't remember what it was set to exactly. This was purely to test the quality of the bokeh ball, nothing else.

Which is which?

AntonLargiader wrote in post #13526767
Looks like some people don't see that you shoot FF.

Me bad... I read "50D" when his signature clearly stated 5DII & 5D.

Although it's a bit pricey, you might look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM <link>. It's an ultra compact diffraction optics version.

How about a 70-210 f/3.5-4.5? It's decent quality, smaller and lighter than the other options you list, and most likely won't make you want to sell your big white monster lens.

gjl711 wrote in post #13503231
The 70-300 is not quite optically as good as the 70-200 f/4IS (that lens is special) but for the cost and weight its a really nice lens. Is compact, light, reasonably fast focusing and pretty decent optically. Definitely worth looking at.

I owned the 70-300. Pretty nice. Light. Good image quality. Not great, but never poor.

mcluckie wrote in post #13503214
Looking for a lighter, long lens

I sold my passionately-loved 70-200 ƒ4IS to get the ƒ28II, but the bulk and weight make it a chore to carry all day. I ONLY shoot it at 2.8 in part to justify it (haha). When I carry primes, the longest I have is the Zeiss 100. I'd like something longer, lighter...

I'm looking for inexpensive recommendations (less than $600 would be easy) that don't include getting the 70-200 ƒ4IS again. I'd be tempted to sell off the 2.8II at too big a loss right now. And, then there's the mental beating I'd give myself. It's a great lens, but I don't always need it, I mean don't always want to carry it.
...
Canon 70-200 ƒ4 IS. Yet again (damn I hate buying the same lens twice, but I did sell the original before the price drops). Is there no other choice for a glass snob like me? If I do this, I'm saying goodbye to the 2.8II.

Thanks in advance, Bob

jayvuu wrote in post #13506561
+1 for the 70-200mm f4L IS. i love mine.

Let's see... Recommend me a lens- something other than the 70-200mm f4L IS, and what does someone go ahead and recommend ? Hmmm....
If this was at work, I'd be mumbling about things like reading and comprehension, or lack thereof; but since this is the forums, I'll refrain..

I do find it funny, in a sort of odd way...

wayne.robbins wrote in post #13536937
Let's see... Recommend me a lens- something other than the 70-200mm f4L IS, and what does someone go ahead and recommend ? Hmmm....
If this was at work, I'd be mumbling about things like reading and comprehension, or lack thereof; but since this is the forums, I'll refrain..

I do find it funny, in a sort of odd way...

I know. Recommendations of the 70-300 were welcome, and people here seem to like it, although with some caveats (not good at the long end, etc.). Right now, it's looking like a 200 2.8 prime. The older series is the same glass as the II, and going for about $400 used. Same $ as the 70-300 refurb'd at Adorama. This is really for my "prime" kit and it seems to fit better.