Canon 70-200mm

skinnylove

skinnylove

Active member
f/4 vs. f/2.8

IS vs. Non IS

I'm trying to decide what I need and what is unnecessary.

I plan to shoot long action shots (skiing) but I also want to shoot indoor sports and concerts etc...which leads me to believe that 2.8 w/ IS would be a good idea. Anyone got any hands on experience with this lens?
 
Also, anyone got any experience with:

Canon 50 1.4?

Tokina 11-16 2.8?

All of these will be on a 1.6x crop. I realize these are all very different lenses, I'm just trying to get my priorities straight.
 
Alright so take into consideration where you will be using the lens mostly, I myself have the f/4 non is because i knew my primary use would be in daylight shooting sports and what not. If your interested in doing concerts alot the extra stops and IS would be nice but i dont think necessary if its only once in a while. Im pretty sure the f/4 non IS is also the sharpest of them all. I have no regrets and more money left in my pocket.
I cant comment on the 50mm 1.4 other than i want one, and the same with the 11-16.Hope that helps
 
I own the 70-200mm 2.8, and I love it. I haven't used it for skiing yet (just recently got it) but I do love it. The only thing I have a problem with is how absurdly heavy it is for me. On a tripod, it's great, but holding it for long periods of time is a workout. It's supposed to be amazing for portraits, but I've had better luck with my 85mm 1.8 for that.

Also, you were talking about a crop so I'm assuming you have a Rebel or 40D. Be very very careful with the 2.8 on your camera. You could easily snap it off the mount if you grab your camera by the body and not the lens when picking it up.

I've heard the f/4 is significantly sharper than the 2.8. That could be bullshit, I don't know.

But for such an expensive lens, do a ton of research before buying!
 
Thanks for the quick replies!

I think the f/4 if supposedly sharper, which I would prefer for ski/action shots particularly would probably be okay with IS for how often I will be doing indoor. I will probably only be shooting indoors every so often, not on the regular so for those few times f/4 with IS should be fast enough?
 
Okay so I'm thinking probably f/4.0 with IS is the most reasonable considering price and what I need it for.

I still have no idea what I want though, fisheye, wide angle, prime or telephoto zoom. I shoot a lot of stuff for school (pretty generic) and I hope to start shooting ski stuff after the holidays. In the summer I shoot biking and skate etc...

Someone help me!
 
Get a 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/either or and you'll be set. You should be able to shoot anything with those.

Obviously if you want a fisheye look, you're going to have to shell out for a fisheye. But for shooting ski stuff and generic school stuff, those two lenses will let you do anything. Granted they are pretty expensive glass, but they will last you for so long and you will almost never be in a situation that you don't have the equipment for.

Also, if you want to fuck around with a prime check out the 50mm f/1.8. For $100, you can't go wrong. To have a prime will also make your photography stronger after time. You don't have the ability to zoom in or zoom out, so you have to crop by moving your body. They are great to have if you have the money to get one.

And by my experience, I've owned a fisheye and it was fun but now I'm over it. Get a wide angle, it will look much better in my opinion. The distortion you get from fisheyes can be cool, but I learned for myself it's just a novelty.
 
completely dependent on your finances and what you will shoot.

if you can afford in, buy the 2.8 IS, because you can always turn off IS, but you can't install IS on a non-IS lens.

The extra full stop and IS will definitely help you with shooting indoors or handheld at slower shutter speeds (1/500 sec), the IS is almost useless and is been know to actually hinder the image quality because the IS mechanism will try to counteract any camera movement.

There is a bit of weight and size difference in all four models, the f4L being the smallest and lightest, 2.8 IS being the heaviest and largest.

Whatever one you choose, you'll be very impressed with the build and optics. The only way you can tell any difference between them is if you pixel peep, but even after editing and uploading, the quality difference is negligible.
 
I've heard that getting the 50 1.8 is legit, im not sure if you need to spend an extra what like 800 bucks just for .4f? Seems silly to me, but i also don't know that much about photog, ive just speaking from what ive read and heard.
 
Ok here is a run down of the 70-200's
2.8 IS - !!!!$1700!!!!! 3.5 lb[/b] pros - 2.8 for super low depth of field, useful when you cant get that close and still want to isolate the subject. Dust and moisture sealed cons- over priced, very very heavy. large volume best in low light,good in sharpness.decent auto focus speed
2.8 - $1300, 2.8 lbpros - 2.8 for depth of fieldcons - no IS, shakier photos in low light or sports. still heavy. large volume not dust/ moisture sealed good in low lightgood in sharpnesssame auto focus as 2.8 IS

4 IS - $1200 1.7 lbspros - supper sharp, really good IS, light weight, small volume. dust/moisture sealed cons - f4 so a loss in depth of field.good in low lightbest in sharpnessfast focus speed
4 - $650 1.6 lbspros - cheap, yet still high quality. light weight, low volume. cons - f4 and no IS, not dust or moisture sealed meh in low lightgood sharpnessok focusing, it can have some trouble some times.

Overall if I was mainly shooting in the studio I would go with the 2.8 IS, if I had some dough for it. If I was going to ever have to travel with the thing or carry it for more then half and hour I would go with the 4 IS. Going with an IS is key for me, especially if your using it at 200 on a 1.6 crop. makes it way easier to track a moving subject. or hold in tight on a subject. Since you will be using it outdoors in snow, having it sealed against the elements is a really good idea.
As for the 4 vs 2.8 thing, the big thing for me is size and weight. When you have a pack on your back for the whole day full of camera equipment it is nice to save some weight every where you can. The smaller size is nice since it will make it easier to pack your bag. Also if you ever travel with it saving weight can save you some money on oversized baggage fees. (which add up quick with ski and photo gear). Its also nice that the 4IS is a bit sharper then the 2.8's. They are both plenty sharp, but its worth noting that the 4 is sharper at every f/stop they share. I really have no problem going 4 over 2.8 these days. The lens is long enough that depth of field should not be an issue, especially on a 1.6 crop. With modern ISO abilities shooting f4 and 1600 or 3200 is going to still provide very crisp shots. I guess I see no real handicap for the f4 in low light these days.
 
The 1.8 is great for the price, its not as high of quality as the 1.4, and I know that plastic mount is what turns most people away from it. Only other thing is that the 1.4 has more blades on its aperture which gives a much better bokeh. Those are really the only differences aside from the 1.4 being a stop faster.
 
i've had extensive experience with both the f/4L IS and the f/2.8L IS, as i originally started out with the 2.8 and sold it a year or so later for the 4, and i have to say i'm pretty happy with my decision to switch to the 4.
the weight difference is very noticeable and as others have said, i've both read and heard that the 4 is actually sharper. i shoot alot of concerts but shoot skiing even more, so i was willing to trade the faster lens for one that weighs less. i didn't want to go with a non-IS version because to me that's something that's a feature that can't hurt, but i'm sure you'll hear arguments from both sides why you should or shouldn't get it.
either way you go you'll be stoked, and the 70-200 is a very typical first step for people into the pro glass level, so if you're unhappy with your purchase later on it wouldn't be hard to sell the lens and switch it up.
 
i wouldnt buy a lens based on weight... i mean honestly, can you really not carry an extra pound around? i wont sacrifice image quality because i dont want to cary a pound extra of weight... i mean sure its heavy but you can always sling the camera around your shoulder when your not taking photos.
if money isnt a big issue, i'd go with the 2.8 IS. the extra stop and IS is great if your camera doesn't have good high-iso performance, and the extra stop will be good for sports and stuff in low light. If sharpness is something your really looking for and is more important than having f2.8, id go with the f/4 IS.
 
my f/4 non IS is very light and sharp but pretty shitty in low light

i used it only outdoors and when asked to shoot a hockey game i ended up having to crank the iso up all the way and get super noisy pictures. i'd say if you're doing a lot of indoor sports then the 2.8 would be necessary but it's really big and heavy so you wouldn't want to take it skiing much
 
shot with both (own a 2.8IS) and you want the 2.8. 4 is a great lens, but if you're wanting to shoot indoor anything you'll want the 2.8. but you'll be wanting it get a pretty decent tripod or monopod to go with that.also don't even waste your time with anything but the IS lenses if possible. If you're going to be purchasing glass, just add the extra couple bills and get the best.
50 primes are kinda useless on crop factors, but that's kinda just an imo i think.
tokina 11-16 2.8. great lens if you need an ultra-wide for the money. but if it's your only lens besides your kit lens, it will get played amazingly fast.

as michelle kinda said, 24-70 and a 70-200 (both 2.8IS's) would be an amazing set. but you would be dropping a good amount on glass, especially for whatever body you're shooting assuming it's not all that great.
 
^thats true (the last part), but if you plan on sticking with photography, you will not get rid of those lenses for a LONG time. they're both great lenses and will work on a full frame or crop body, so you can keep it no matter what body you get (assuming the lens/body are compatible)
 
if your camera is 40d or newer you can shoot almost anything indoors at f4.
and you can get a 70-200 4 IS and 80 1.8 for less then the 70-200 2.8 IS. Or for just a bit more you can do the 70-200 4 IS and 135 2L for just a bit more.
and doubling the wight is very noticeable, especially if your holding it for longer then 30 minutes (re: sport game, ski event), and enjoy paying the over weight bag fees, a pound here and there adds up.
Then you get into the size issue, Having used both lenses (and packed them in bags), the 4 is much more friendly when you are packing it away. This allows you to pack a couple more pw's or an additional lens.
holding a 1d mk2 and a 70-200 2.8 is very different from holding a 7D and a 70-200 f4. The second set is more competitive in lower light. Probably would cost about the same for either.
 
eh, i really dont think the weight is a big issue though. I have used the 80-200 f2.8 on my d200 and a flash all day (well, a few hours) without any issues at all. I know the 80-200 isnt as heavy as canons 70-200 2.8 IS (but the d200 is a heavy camera), but its still not a light lens. I suggest the 2.8 IS. im picking up a 70-200 2.8 VR (the nikon one) very soon and am pumped!
 
Hahah so thanks for all the help guys. 70-200 IS is next on my list, but I ended up getting 2 speedlites and 50 1.8, and a backpack camera bag for the hill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top