Canon 70-200's ?

marc_vertesi

marc_vertesi

Member
So, i'm asking that question here on NS because I feel that people are more close to what I'm doing, which is shoot snow, skiing and others.

I've got a 7D for quite a while now, bought à Tamron 17-50 and a tokina 11-16, which I'm really happy with. When I bought it, I got the 18-135 which I know isn't the best zoom lens out there but I just wanted something to begin, plus I didn't pay extra (would have gotten the body for the same price with or without it). Anyways, I've came to the point where I really see the weakness of this lens, and I'm tired of using it.

I searched a bit on the interwebz, and came to the conclusion that I probably wanted a 70-200 because of the fixed aperture and the nice zoom range. But there are many 70-200 models (IS, non IS, USM, f/4, f/2.8 etc) and I'm a bit confused. I can't decide, of course I would love to buy the f/2.8 II, but it's so expensive and I can't really afford it now.

So basically, I wanted to ask you about your personal experiences with any of those lenses, the + and - of any type etc. Everything you know about it. I really need to make a choice, but I'm pretty limited because of the money. And if you got any other alternative, an other lens. I'm really looking for something sharp, with nice contrasts and it must have a fixed aperture. Weight and color (yeah we never know) doesn't matter to me! What would you recommend me?

Hope you understood what I'm trying to say! Thanks in advance
 
I have a 70-200 f4 non IS. I absolutely love it. Its awesome for filming and taking photos and has great depth at f4 still. I didnt get the IS version because it was way more and when shooting at higher shutter speeds or filming its non really that important i find. Also its not to big of a lens so its still easy to carry around with you.
 
I think the f/4 is your best bet. it's lightest, cheapest, and smallest. I think you'll usually have plenty of light outside with snow settings so f/4 is fine. you don't really need IS just cause you don't. you're not in low light, and 200 is not that zoomed in. I picked up a 2.8 IS and it's super heavy. I've even read reviews that sa the f/4 is sharper.
 
Does weight matter to you?

if yes, go f4, if not, go 2.8

Does lowlight performance matter to you?

if no, go f4, if yes, go 2.8

 
Just throwing this out there:
From sharpest to least sharp of Mark ONE 70-200's.
1. f4 IS2. f2.83. f 2.8 IS4. f4
And I would not get a telephoto without IS, it'll increase your keeper rate by 50%. if you have the cash of course.
 
Tripodzzz!

But yeah...

Also a good option is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II. Runs like 800 bucks or so I think? If you don't need the big aperture, just go with the 70-200 f/4
 
i never shoot my 70-200 without a monopod/tripod, solves the need for IS for much cheeper. $30 monopod ftw
 
Well thank you very much, it really helped me to make a choice! But still, I am not really sure if I should invest a bit more money in the IS version of the f/4, because I really want to shoot more close-up shots, fast moving objects, moving backgrounds (I'm sorry, I'm swiss and I'm really struggling to find the right words for the video slang), if you understand what i mean... Of course I've got a tripod, I never shoot without it, but i bought a DV-700 (super bargain) which has a really smooth head! But I think I will go for the IS version...

Anyways, thank you very much, and if you got more tips, don't hesitate!
 
IS does nothing for moving objects and you shouldn't use it if you're shooting faster than 1/500.
 
Well, after long discussions with my credit card, I finally decided to buy the f/4 IS! Just wanted to thank you guys for the advices, I made a edit from Sunday with the lens, using it for the first time, it's such an amazing lens, can't wait to shoot more with it! Check out the edit in the video section!
 
Great choice my friend! Fuck the haters, IS is useful on that lens. Say you're walking around new york for a whole day.. you're not going to want to carry a monopod or tripod. Trust me, you'll see the value.
 
My mom owns a 70-200 f/4 L and let's me use it every once in a while. I have to say it is one of the best zoom tele lenses you can get. The only con is that it's kinda heavy which may be a bitch when carrying it around the hill. If you're willing to drop 1500 on a lens, f/4 L is money well spent.
 
Dan Carr has published a lot of good information on this subject; mostly in his blog.

If I was to buy a 70-200 right now it would be the 4 IS. My rational.

Weight is important. the 4's are much lighter then the 2.8s.

Modern high ISO quality. It is now possible to get very crisp images at high ISOs.

Depth of Field is not a problem at 200mm.

The 4 IS has better quality then the 4.
 
huh. didn't know the f4 IS is the sharpest. thought that new 2.8 IS 2 would be.

Is the f4 IS still as sharp is your using it with the IS off?
 
Yeah the f4 models are both great but some people don't realize that while the f4 non-IS is a durable awesome lens, it is not weather sealed, all other versions are. Don't get me wrong it is still a badass lens and worth every penny
 
i did not know this. Well i have already dropped my 7d in the snow 3 times this year with that lens on it and its been fine. It has withstood a lot of different weather from sand-storms to blowing snow storms to rain and it has been fine. any of these is sick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top