What 70 - 200mm EF lens?

Hi All.

Bit of wishful thinking here. (Chrismas fund, holiday fund?)

What does anyone think about the following options for a lens?
Really the top two are in the frame. Not a lot pricewise between them but specwise...

1. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM £979
2. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM £929
3. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM £499

Wildlife, Scenery, architecture.

Canon EOS5d MKII 50mm F1.4. 430EXII
Thanks RMcP

They're all excellent lenses and each one has one or more advantages over the other two, so it comes down completely to your intended uses. The first one's only advantage is the maximum aperture, which gives you better shutter speeds in low light and can provide a narrower depth of field for better separation between the subject and the background. The second has the advantage of a very effective image stabilisation and is the sharpest of the three. The third has the advantage of low price and light weight (number two is light too).

Although people on these threads make a fuss about which one has the best image quality, in real life you would be more than happy with any of them. All three also work well with a 1.4x extender if you need additional reach.

IS is very nice to have, especially if you ever want to put a teleconverter on the lens (as I suspect you might some day... 200mm on a FF cmaera isn't very long for wildlife photos).

As such, I'd lean toward the f4 IS lens, or a used f2.8 IS "Mark I" if you can find one in good condition.

It also doesn't hurt that the 70-200/4 IS is about the sharpest pencil in the drawer, aside from the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II.

As the OP mentioned wildlife , perhaps consider the 100-400 L

Rob-P wrote in post #15772555
Wildlife, Scenery, architecture.

Canon EOS5d MKII 50mm F1.4. 430EXII
Thanks RMcP

Foggiest wrote in post #15772666
As the OP mentioned wildlife , perhaps consider the 100-400 L

And the OP mentioned scenery and architecture. I think the OP might want to be more specific in his goal.

I agree for wildlife consider the 100-400L, a 70-200mm may be a little short in certain instances for wildlife (IMO).

For architecture I typically would not consider any of those. Inside or out, I'd prefer a 17-40L/16-35L instead. (Or at least a 24-XX)

For scenery any lens can do, though if it is landscape scenery, most would also say an UWA. For landscapes I don't have a preference, depending on what I want to convey and where I'm situated, it could be UWA to telephoto.

More info from the OP to us might allow us to help better.

That said! The first two 70-200s listed by the OP are excellent (not used the third - I would assume it is also excellent). I prefer IS on lenses 200mm and beyond, but it is not a deal breaker.

For wildlife, scenery and architecture, I would select the 70-200 f/4 IS. The image stabilization will come in handy, and f/2.8 will not be needed as much for these subjects (except wildlife at dawn/dusk). You can also add a 1.4x TC to extend your reach for wildlife.

Wildlife - 70-200 f4 IS (with at least a 1.4x teleconverter)
Architecture - something wide to ultra-wide
Scenery/Landscapes - just about any lens, depending on the situation, but normal to wide is most common.

Go the IS as it will improve your keeping rate. The f2.8 hasn't been anywhere near as useful as I thought it would be for my style of photography and it's really heavy over a day if you're not indoors. Both have excellent IQ and I'm thinking of dumping the f2.8 for the f4.

If you're interested in wildlife, consider the 100-400L or even the 70-300L.

Thanks all for the suggestions/ideas.
I think I will go for the 70 - 200 F4 IS it seems like a good mid range. And a reasonable price (compared to the F2.8's)
Then I can sell another one of the kids for medical experiments and see what I can pick up with a longer reach.
Thanks again. McP