70-200 options?

Thinking about a 70-200 fixed apperture lens to cover the extra focal fom the 24-105 and 28-75. the 300 2.8 is a bit big to carry around for those baby shots in the park

Soooo....do I need f2.8? Would be nice for the DOF control and indoor shots but I do not want to spend on the L. So how do the Sigma and Tamron lenses hold up in terms of sharpness and speed....or should I just buy the f4 L or IS L?
Would also be a good second body lens when using the 300 prime, not that I am going anywhere for a while

If you can get a cheap f/4L IS, grab it. It weighs half as much as the f/2.8 and is slightly sharper. I wouldn't trade my f/4 IS for anything other 70-200

I'm in the market for a 70-200 as well. I went to a few places to buy one today and they offered me the Sigma version for a great deal. I held it for the first time today and it weighed too much for me to carry around. I also felt that I would have trouble getting a lot of steady shots.. I know lots of people have the lens and love it though. I tried the canon 70-200 F/4 (non-IS) and I think I'll go with that one.

no offense guys but if you did a search that would be really good for you... BUT since you did post this thread I will give you my opinion on the matter... IF you want a 2.8 get it. If you dont have the cash nor want to spend the cash on the canon 70-200 2.8 IS, dont spend the money on the 2.8 non IS. Get the simga 70-200 2.8. It is just as fast focusing and as sharp as the canon 2.8 IS. The only thing you dont get is the IS.

As far as the f4 vs f2.8 is concerned, just remember that you dont have have the chance to go 2.8 at all on the f4 so that kills that. If you get the IS f4 it still doesnt matter because the IS will NOT help you stop motion. It simply allows you to use a slower shutter speed to get the amount of light in you need. If you shoot sports, indoors especially, you will want the 2.8. It allows you to use a faster shutter speed to stop motion.

Honestly I dont recommend anything I havent used before because that means that I have no reason to base an opinion off of it. But I have used/owned every 70-200 out there, including the sigma and tamron. Here is the chart that I have come up with as far as the order you should be considering these lenses:

1) canon 70-200 2.8 IS
+Best out there- has IS and a 2.8 aperture, great build, sharp
-heavy, but not as heavy as everyone makes it out to be but it is 3.2lbs, price
2) Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II
+Fast aperture, focusing, great build quality, SHARP, price
-can sometimes have focusing issues ( I never had any and alot of people have never had any)
3) canon 70-200 f4 IS
+New age 4stop IS, Good build, Sharp, L quality (for those of you who care about that)
-constant f4 is not fast enough for alot of indoor sports or night shots.
4)Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS
+Great build, sharp, 2.8
-Doesnt have IS, heavy but not as heavy as the IS version
5) tamron 70-200 2.8
+Sharpest of the bunch, constant 2.8, price
- Uses a micro motor and isnt fast focusing, build quality isnt amazing
6) canon 70-200 f4 non IS
+good build
- no IS, constant F4 (for the reasons stated above)

Hope that helps.

I see this all the time, Is the f4 really sharper that the 2.8? I have the 2.8 is now and it is really super sharp. I would think the the prime 200l would be sharper but that's me.

The lens is not that heavy either i don't think. I have carried it all day long to certain events i went to and was happy and not hurting from it lol.

Can you post comparison shots to verify these statements? Thanks

canonnoob wrote in post #8548756
no offense guys but if you did a search that would be really good for you... BUT since you did post this thread I will give you my opinion on the matter... IF you want a 2.8 get it. If you dont have the cash nor want to spend the cash on the canon 70-200 2.8 IS, dont spend the money on the 2.8 non IS. Get the simga 70-200 2.8. It is just as fast focusing and as sharp as the canon 2.8 IS. The only thing you dont get is the IS.

As far as the f4 vs f2.8 is concerned, just remember that you dont have have the chance to go 2.8 at all on the f4 so that kills that. If you get the IS f4 it still doesnt matter because the IS will NOT help you stop motion. It simply allows you to use a slower shutter speed to get the amount of light in you need. If you shoot sports, indoors especially, you will want the 2.8. It allows you to use a faster shutter speed to stop motion.

Honestly I dont recommend anything I havent used before because that means that I have no reason to base an opinion off of it. But I have used/owned every 70-200 out there, including the sigma and tamron. Here is the chart that I have come up with as far as the order you should be considering these lenses:

1) canon 70-200 2.8 IS
+Best out there- has IS and a 2.8 aperture, great build, sharp
-heavy, but not as heavy as everyone makes it out to be but it is 3.2lbs, price
2) Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II
+Fast aperture, focusing, great build quality, SHARP, price
-can sometimes have focusing issues ( I never had any and alot of people have never had any)
3) canon 70-200 f4 IS
+New age 4stop IS, Good build, Sharp, L quality (for those of you who care about that)
-constant f4 is not fast enough for alot of indoor sports or night shots.
4)Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS
+Great build, sharp, 2.8
-Doesnt have IS, heavy but not as heavy as the IS version
5) tamron 70-200 2.8
+Sharpest of the bunch, constant 2.8, price
- Uses a micro motor and isnt fast focusing, build quality isnt amazing
6) canon 70-200 f4 non IS
+good build
- no IS, constant F4 (for the reasons stated above)

Hope that helps.

No. I have owned all 4 70-200's and this is really something started by people trying to rationalize their purchase. Not that either is not sharp, but there really is no difference. Also, you will hear many on this board go on and on about the virtues of this lens vs that lens when they do not, and never have, owned the lens. Take what you read hear with a grain of salt, it is probably just people passing on what they have heard rather than what they have experience with.

2004ep3hatch wrote in post #8548775
I see this all the time, Is the f4 really sharper that the 2.8? I have the 2.8 is now and it is really super sharp. I would think the the prime 200l would be sharper but that's me.

The lens is not that heavy either i don't think. I have carried it all day long to certain events i went to and was happy and not hurting from it lol.

GENERALLY Yes, it has been shown that the F4 IS is tack sharp at F4, the 2.8 is not tack sharp at 2.8.

Easy answer - look at the charts on the tests at Photozone.de

Jerobean wrote in post #8548910
GENERALLY Yes, it has been shown that the F4 IS is tack sharp at F4, the 2.8 is not tack sharp at 2.8.

I don't know why people say this - I've found my f2.8 to be tack sharp wide open.

rklepper wrote in post #8548868
Can you post comparison shots to verify these statements? Thanks

comparison shots of what? the fact that I have owned the sigma 70-200 2.8, canon 70-200 2.8 IS and have used the rest?

canonnoob wrote in post #8548756
no offense guys but if you did a search that would be really good for you... BUT since you did post this thread I will give you my opinion on the matter... IF you want a 2.8 get it. If you dont have the cash nor want to spend the cash on the canon 70-200 2.8 IS, dont spend the money on the 2.8 non IS. Get the simga 70-200 2.8. It is just as fast focusing and as sharp as the canon 2.8 IS. The only thing you dont get is the IS.

As far as the f4 vs f2.8 is concerned, just remember that you dont have have the chance to go 2.8 at all on the f4 so that kills that. If you get the IS f4 it still doesnt matter because the IS will NOT help you stop motion. It simply allows you to use a slower shutter speed to get the amount of light in you need. If you shoot sports, indoors especially, you will want the 2.8. It allows you to use a faster shutter speed to stop motion.

Honestly I dont recommend anything I havent used before because that means that I have no reason to base an opinion off of it. But I have used/owned every 70-200 out there, including the sigma and tamron. Here is the chart that I have come up with as far as the order you should be considering these lenses:

1) canon 70-200 2.8 IS
+Best out there- has IS and a 2.8 aperture, great build, sharp
-heavy, but not as heavy as everyone makes it out to be but it is 3.2lbs, price
2) Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II
+Fast aperture, focusing, great build quality, SHARP, price
-can sometimes have focusing issues ( I never had any and alot of people have never had any)
3) canon 70-200 f4 IS
+New age 4stop IS, Good build, Sharp, L quality (for those of you who care about that)
-constant f4 is not fast enough for alot of indoor sports or night shots.
4)Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS
+Great build, sharp, 2.8
-Doesnt have IS, heavy but not as heavy as the IS version
5) tamron 70-200 2.8
+Sharpest of the bunch, constant 2.8, price
- Uses a micro motor and isnt fast focusing, build quality isnt amazing
6) canon 70-200 f4 non IS
+good build
- no IS, constant F4 (for the reasons stated above)

Hope that helps.

I spend everyday on sites like this, I read alot. Sample images and reviews leave inconclusive evidence, so I asked for a broader base of opinions from owners. Thanks however for your take on the lenses. I may go with the f4 L or IS L due to weight (and my lack of love for HSM or Tammy micro garbage AF) but I still value opinions.

Fair enough but I'm basing it off t I have used and owned. You can't go wrong with the f4. It is a great lens. I have no complaints other than the fact that it iw an f4 lol I like fast glass because it offer more flexibility. But it is a great lens. The canon 2,8 series isn't heavy but it is more tan the rest. Good luck with your purchase and enjoy the lens.

Neilyb wrote in post #8549946
I spend everyday on sites like this, I read alot. Sample images and reviews leave inconclusive evidence, so I asked for a broader base of opinions from owners. Thanks however for your take on the lenses. I may go with the f4 L or IS L due to weight (and my lack of love for HSM or Tammy micro garbage AF) but I still value opinions.

Cheers and thanks for all the replies.

I wouldn't base the decision around sharpness or any IQ differences - all 4 of the canon 70-200's are excellent performers and any differences in IQ is marginal at best.

If you can swing the cost of the IS lenses then give 'er, I find IS quite useful at longer focal lengths. The real considerations are two that we can't really help you with...

1. What size/weight lens are you willing to carry? You state your 300mm is too big for casual photos. The F/2.8 is a fairly large and weight lens - unless I have planned a shoot for it mine stays at home. I've thought about supplementing with a telephoto prime for when I want to travel light but haven't pounced on one yet. If the purpose of the lens will be casual kid shots and then larger lens will prevent you from bringing it along then the answer it clear.

2. Do you NEED F/2.8? If you are looking to stop motion then F/2.8 can be valuable, and it does give you more dof control. That being said, the F/4's are very sharp wide open and an IS lens will be good for static shots. If you're working outdoors a great deal I see the F/4 as being the best option. Indoors you may find the minimum focusing distance to be limiting unless you have lots of room to move back from your subject.

Easy answer... both. Now back to reality... I think if I were you I would give an F/4 a whirl to save on the expense and the size/weight. If you find you do need F/2.8 (as I did) you can sell the F/4 and upgrade without losing much on your investment.