70-200 non IS

Hi there

As all my lenses are wide, the time has come for a nice long focal zoom. I don't need IS, so the choice is between the f 2.8 and the f 4 (price difference is huge, 2.8 is twice as much).

I've read thet the 2.8 is somewhat soft, but excellent quality at f 4, and that at f 4 sharpness is similar to the slower f 4 lens. Is this correct? You think the extra stop is worth 1000 dollars more?

Tamron has focusing issues, sigma as well... this is a major investment as noone pays me for my photos, and i really don't want to do something stupid.

thanks for your advice

[as usual, please direct me to the relevant thread should I have missed it]

70-200 f2.8L is the way to go if you can swing it. It also depends on what you are photographing. Will you be only using it outdoors, or will you need it inside, where you'll need the 2.8 to keep your shutter speed faster than 1/200.

No indoors. Outdoors sports, birds & astrophoto...

I do not usually buy canon lenses as I find them expensive... but this time canon really seems to have an edge over sigmas.

i DO know that 2.8 is better, for obvious reasons... but if that extra better bit is worth that much cash, really dunno.

i'm used to shooting at f 4 (sigma 10-20) but it does seem a bit slow when lights are dim...

If you wont use it indoors then just go for the f/4, if you feel you need more yu can always upgrade.

Is the wieght difference an issue for you? I think you might give the new Tamron 70-200/2.8 another look. Af is a little slower but useable. Couple people here do do sports with it and the price, MFD, weight, etc. are right.

Hi,

Weight is not an issue - however autofocus is. is it REALLY that slow?

ecce_lex wrote in post #9390583
Hi there


I've read thet the 2.8 is somewhat soft, but excellent quality at f 4, and that at f 4 sharpness is similar to the slower f 4 lens. Is this correct? You think the extra stop is worth 1000 dollars more?

[as usual, please direct me to the relevant thread should I have missed it]

Soft? No. The 2.8 version is NO WAY soft wide open at any FL. It is sharper at F4 but it's already really sharp at 2.8 so you are only going from excellent to REALLY excellent.

Where do you see a $1000 price difference? 2.8 no IS is about $1300 F4 non IS is like $700 (don't really know- bought mine a few years ago for $1000.

Gene

Pricewise, I saw that in Switzerland...

All of the Canon 70-200's are sharp, and unless you're doing some serious pixel peeping I doubt if you would notice any difference. It comes down to weight, speed, and price. I have the f4 non-IS and it is light, sharp, and fine at f4. If you're going to be strictly outdoors try the f4 version. If for some reason you find that you want the extra stop you can always sell the lens at little loss and upgrade to the f2.8 version.

Your wise words + low noise at high ISO on the 7D will make my buy the f/ 4. too bad it0s not weathersealed...

Again, thanks for your help. the 2.8 is tempting, but huge, heavy & pricey.

Go for the 70-200mm f/2.8, at least it doesn't have a plastic body like the 70-200mm f/4.0. It is very sharp wide open. I bought mine from Canoga Camera in California for $1,199.94 with the instant rebate of $80.00 off.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

I agree with going with the 2.8. I like to take nature/wildlife pictures and upgraded to the 2.8 from the 4 because I like the extra stop, particularly when I use it with a teleconverter. But I'm like you and use it mostly outdoors and am really glad I spent the extra money.

You evil creatures.

:P

I also was going to say that the F4 version in outdoors shooting should be no problem given you shoot with a 7D. If you need some speed just bump the ISO. They are all tack sharp, I bought the F4 because a) it's what I could afford b) its nice & light. I don't regret the purchase at all and it's an amzing little lens. Yes I would buy a 2.8 IS version if I had the money but I don't have it and get by without it nicely.

Yes and No....

Gatorboy wrote in post #9390619
70-200 f2.8L is the way to go if you can swing it. It also depends on what you are photographing. Will you be only using it outdoors, or will you need it inside, where you'll need the 2.8 to keep your shutter speed faster than 1/200.

The choice between the f/4 and f/2.8 versions of the 70-200mm L lenses is not only based on the extra stop available on the f/2.8 lens but is also predicated on the weight and bulk of these two lenses.

I personally prefer the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens over either of the f/2.8 versions because the f/4L IS is much lighter in weight and is quite a bit smaller. In fact, I carry my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens mounted on a second 1.6x camera at the same weight as the f/2.8 version alone.

I carry the f/4L IS lens virtually everywhere as half of my two camera/two lens travel and general photography setup (the other lens is usually a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS). The weight and bulk of either f/2.8 model would be too much for my style of use.

If you absolutely need the extra stop, then the f/2.8 version is what you should get. However, I can shoot in lower light levels with my f/4L IS lens than I could with the f/2.8L non-IS lens. I get 100% sharp imagery hand-holding at 200mm using f/4 at 1/60 second and get a very respectable percentage of keepers at 1/30 second.

I realize that IS will not stop subject movement but, when the entire image is not sharp due to camera shake, it doesn't matter if the subject is moving. I could never get 100% sharp images at 200mm shooting at 1/120 second and I could get NO sharp imagery shooting at 1/60 second. The 1/120 and 1/60 second would be the f/2.8 equivalent of my f/4L IS 1/60 and 1/30 second.

The size of the f/2.8 models is another drawback when using this lens as a day-to-day glass. It is not only fairly cumbersome but attracts a lot of attention from subjects.

One thing that I must make clear.... Each of the 70-200mm Canon family of lenses produces excellent imagery. Although some of these lenses are ranked above others (the f/4L IS seems to be the top performer) by pixel peepers; I doubt if you could tell from a selection of images shot with these four lenses, which lens was responsible for which image.

Price is not a deciding factor since the f/4L IS and the f/2.8L non-IS are in equivalent price ranges.