70-200mm lens...which one & why?

the 70-200 2.8 non-is is one of the best lenses i have.. I have never once in years of shooting found a need for IS as I will never be shooting slower than 1/500th of a second anyway.. the 2.8 pulls out some sweet bokeh over the f/4

gonzogolf wrote in post #17762257
Buy a used 70-200f4 IS for around $800. That said there are a few misconceptions in the above. The f4IS is sharper than the original 2.8 IS, but not so the 2.8 ISII. The F4IS was canon's sharpest zoom and was the first innthat range to get 4 stop IS. The MkII 2.8 is even sharper and has the new IS so if its within your budget you are golden. But the f4IS is a tremendous value. As for the 3rd party lenses I would only go there if you absolutely require 2.8 on a budget.

I agree with this.

But, I have no experience with the Tamron. I do see that it weighs almost twice what the 70-200 f/4 IS weighs.

I have owned (or currently own) four of the five Canon 70-200 models (I have not owned or tried the f/4 non-IS).

For Disney, for travel, for non special events, for outdoors - the f/4 IS is excellent (It is now my most used lens). I would not want a lens that weighs twice as much for those uses.

I use the f/2.8 IS II for weddings, dark indoor events.

Look here... $690 for f4 IS right here now on POTN.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1444477

No afiliation with seller.

70-200 f4 IS is a fantastic lens I would choose it over the tamron...whichever you choose go for one with IS , it does come in handy..
If you can stretch to the 70-200 2.8 IS II it is the best you can get...

I'd get a used Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS (or a new one, if you can find one).

It's imminently usable in available and low light--that one particular stop makes an immense amount of difference. I use mine for successful handheld shots of concert audiences (yes, not under the stage lights). It takes every bit of that F2.8 and IS to make that happen with consistent success, even at higher ISOs.

I wouldn't buy any long lens these days without IS for stills unless I was committed to using a tripod--and now that I'm mostly doing video, I won't buy any lens without IS that I expect to handhold.

If you buy anything less, either slower or without IS, there will probably be times you'll regret the compromise.

If you're on a budget and want one 70-200 for everything, then I'd go for the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Ver I. I've owned one since well before the Ver II came out, and it's a great lens. Now that it can be had used for pretty cheap (in lens terms anyway) it's only real fault is that it's a bit heavy. Most of us who have owned the 2.8 IS (either version) will tell you that it's well worth the weight if you're going to be shooting portraits, or low light venues like weddings, plays, concerts, or even your kids' softball games as the sun is going down. It's a great value for its mix of AF speed, fast aperture, bokeh, and great IQ. It may not be the absolute best at each one of those, but for me it's at the "sweet spot" of versatility without breaking the bank.

I recently got the Tokina 80-200 f/2.8. AF works, draws beautifully, I am a happy camper. The reason I am mentioning it in this thread is that they are so cheap:

http://www.ebay.com …6d0de4:g:emMAAO​Swu4BVxvjF

Just something to consider...

Since you have a crop body, consider the Sigma 50-150 F/2.8 OS.

don1163 wrote in post #17769409
If you can stretch to the 70-200 2.8 IS II it is the best you can get...

+1

It's a stack of primes

ben805 wrote in post #17778759
+1

It's a stack of primes

+2

With roughly equivalent weight

ben805 wrote in post #17778759
+1

It's a stack of primes

That is a particularly apt way to describe it!

I use both the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS USM (original version) and the 70-200/4L IS USM.

All four of the Canon 70-200mm lenses are excellent, durable workhorses with high quality L-series build and sealing. All four have very fine to excellent image quality. Don't hesitate to choose among them for the one that best fits your budget and purposes. The original and very good 70-200/2.8L IS USM that I use is the only one that's been discontinued and upgraded so far, with an even better Mark II version.

The f2.8 lenses are about 50% larger and heavier than the f4 versions. The f2.8 lenses come with a tripod mounting ring, while with the f4 a ring is a separately sold option. All four come with matching lens hoods... the f2.8 lenses use a "petal" type, while the f4 lenses use a more traditional type of hood. All four are IF or "internal focusing", meaning that all focusing and zooming is done inside the lens, they don't grow longer when focused closer or zoomed, and their front barrel doesn't rotate when focusing. This makes for better balance and more resistance to dust and moisture intrusion. The f2.8 lenses use 77mm filters, while the f4 lenses use 67mm.

You also have choice of lenses with or without image stabilization (IS). I love IS on telephoto lenses, in particular, and feel it's worth the extra cost and makes possible some shots I simply wouldn't get without it. But it does add cost and the non-IS lenses are a viable alternative for someone willing to use a monopod or tripod or mostly only using faster shutter speeds anyway.

The two f4 versions (IS and non-IS) and the newest 70-200/2.8L IS "Mark II" use a fluorite lens element, which is likely what helps them be among the sharpest 70-200s from any manufacturer. The other two f2.8 don't have fluorite, but still manage excellent image quality without it.

If I had to rank the image quality of the Canon 70-200s, I'd put the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II and the 70-200/4 IS in pretty much of a tie for first place, at the apertures they share. The f2.8 lens would then win out with most people for its larger aperture that potentially can create a stronger background blur. They both also have the latest and "best-est" 3 to 4 stop image stabilization, too. Next I'd rank the 70-200/2.8 IS "original" version, which just isn't quite as sharp wide open and uses an earlier type of IS that's rated for 2 to 3 stops of assistance. After that, I'd rank the 70-200/4 non-IS, which is sharp edge to edge the way only a fluorite lens can be, but is f4 and doesn't have IS at all. Close behind it is the oldest model of Canon 70-200, the f2.8 without IS, it's not got fluorite and isn't as sharp wide open, plus lacks stabilization... but it does have f2.8 and the potential for more background blur.

But, in truth, there isn't huge difference between them in terms of IQ and most other performance factors. All four have fast, accurate and relatively quiet USM focus drive. The f2.8 lenses are a wee bit faster and more responsive, especially on any of the Canon cameras with one or more of the center AF points enhanced for f2.8 and faster lenses. But, once again, it's hard to detect much difference in focus speed, in real world use. There's a reason these lenses are in a lot of sports shooters' and photojournalists' camera bags!

I haven't used, but have heard really good things about the current Tamron 70-200mm. Like the Canon f2.8 lenses, it is bound to be larger and heavier in order to accommodate the bigger aperture. I believe Tamron offers an unusually long warranty on their lenses. I use a couple of their macro lenses currently and have used a variety of other, vintage Tamron SP lenses in the past... and generally found them all to be excellent.

However, one thing to consider with third party vs OEM lenses is that with the third party there is no guarantee of future compatibility. As lenses and cameras have become increasingly electronic in nature, this has become more of an issue. Canon guarantees that their L-series (including all their 70-200s) will be fully compatible with all future cameras. And it's been a pretty good bet even with Canon's non-L... There have been no real compatibility issues so far, in over 25 years and more than 100 million lenses to date in the EOS/EF system. However, third party manufacturers "reverse engineer" their lenses to work with Canon and other manufacturers.... and have to be careful to avoid patent infringements, too. So while a third party lens may work perfectly with current and previous models, there's simply no guarantee that they'll work as well or even at all on any future cameras from that same manufacturer. This has been an issue with some Sigma and Tamron lenses in the past. To be fair, they've both been pretty good about fixing issues on the current, recent and more valuable lenses. But some third party lenses have simply become expensive paperweights, when their technology was no longer compatible with newer camera models. (For example, I have one old Sigma 28-75mm that works fine on EOS-3 film cameras and a 10D DSLR... but locks up 30D and any later model with a lens communication error code. But it's not a valuable lens, so not worth trying to have it fixed... if that were even possible.)

If the size/weight of any of the f2.8 lenses is a problem, Canon's f4s are the only current alternative. AFAIK, among the third party lens manufacturers only Tokina is now offering a more compact 70-200/4... and that lens is presently only available in Nikon mount... not for Canon.

I have little doubt that you'd see significant improvement in many ways with any of the 70-200s, over your current lens. There is no way that an economy 15X "do everything" zoom can possibly hold up against a 3X premium/pro zoom! You should expect better image quality, better AF performance, better build and durability... basically better in every way. You might miss some of the shorter or longer focal lengths though, and find yourself looking for other lenses or accessories.

If thinking of using a 70-200 with a teleconverter, I've occasionally used a 1.4X Canon Mark II on mine with reasonably good success. There's some loss of IQ, but not too bad. And AF slows a little, but not a lot. OTOH, Ive tested 2X Canon Mark II on my f2.8 and félt the IQ takes too much of a hit for my tastes. and I really don't use either zoom with TCs very much, since I have 300mm and 500mm lenses to use instead. It's somewhat subjective, whats acceptable and what's not, and a 70-200 + 1.4X might be superior to your current lens. I understand the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II works better with TCs than any of it's predecessors... especially with the newer Mark III TCs... both 1.4X and 2X.

You might ask why I have two Canon 70-200s. Well, I got the f2.8 IS around 15 years ago and it's been one of my most used lenses. Still works great, but I thought it might be a good idea to have a backup, plus I came across a pretty good deal on a "like new" 70-200/4 IS with the accessory tripod mount (which I wanted, but normally costs an extra $160 for the Canon version).

What surprised me a little is that now I probably use the f4 lens more often. An awful lot of the time when shooting sports I'm using f4 or f5.6 anyway, so that I don't end up with too shallow depth of field and/or to cover any minor focus errors on my part, so it's all the lens I need. Plus I certainly don't mind the smaller size and lighter weight (fewer ibuprofen tabs during the shooting day and somewhat less aches afterward). I may someday replace my old, original 70-200/2.8 IS with the Mark II... but I'm in no rush to do so. And, for me, the approx. $2000 it would cost to upgrade to the latest-and-greatest might be better spent elsewhere. If I didn't already have two excellent 70-200s, I might I'd probably get the Mark II.

Warbird55 wrote in post #17777220
Since you have a crop body, consider the Sigma 50-150 F/2.8 OS.

I've always heard and read that's a very good lens, even if it's "crop only". But, I just don't understand the point. The original non-OS version of it was pretty darned compact and light weight (though lacking a tripod mounting ring). But, the OS version - still "crop only", but now with a tripod ring added - grew to the point that it's no longer significantly smaller or very much lighter than a full frame capable, stabilized 70-200/2.8. So why not just get one of those instead? Maybe that's why Sigma discontinued the 50-150 OS a while back.

This is an excellent response Alan.

With the Mk III 1.4x TC you have to do some serious pixel peeping to notice loss of IQ, but it is there with either of the latest 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4. I'd say with the newer teleconverters we can upgrade your comment to "with often great success". The Mk III 2.x was unacceptable to me as well, but yeah, it's all subjective.

Based primarily on Photozone.com's review of Canon's 70-200 f4 IS, that's the one I'd go with!

I use the F4 non IS and it's a great lens and very sharp plus very convenient for travelling or shooting outdoors and you don't want to lug around the heavier F2.8