Looking for some input on my first tele lens

[JAlps]

Hey dudes! it's one of these threads again. I'm looking to pick up my first high quality tele lens, I've been considering three and I wanted to hear some input from what you guys are shooting with.

Ill be using it on a GH4 with a speedbooster XL, I mainly plan on using the lens in the back country.

The three I have been considering are:

Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS

Canon 70-200 f/4L IS

Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

My main concerns is whether or not I can get away with using the f/4 or 4-5.6 on a crop body in lower light situations. I'd love to be able to save a bit of cash from the 2.8, plus the f/4 will end up sharper. I'm up in BC so as many of you know conditions get cloudy QUITE often.

For the Tamron my worry is durability since it is a plastic bodied lens, I'd like for whatever I get to be able to take a bit of a beating as well as a bit of wetness.

Cheers dudes!

 

[marjoribanks]

I cant really attest to durability all that much, but I own the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 for my Canon 80D. The lens has definitely been thrown around in my camera bag a ton and I've used it in pouring rain and some really cold days but I wouldn't consider those scenarios as a testament to its durability. Love the lens though, less expensive than the Canon f/2.8 variant yet imo has exact same image quality

 

[eheath]

If you wanna save money, get the f4. You won't have issues until it actually starts to get dark, after the sun sets, a cloudy day isn't going to be too dark for a f4 lens.

 

[whiteboi]

I mean if it works with your budget, get the canon F2.8, no questions asked. Im a Sony Alpha mirrorless user (A7) and I have the Sony F/4 70-200 only because the F2.8 is like $3K, it gets the job done just fine until it starts to get slightly dark. With the 2.8 you'll get a way more shallow depth of field and a lot better low light performance

 

[JAlps]

Cheers guys for the insight, I'm gonna take a little more of a look into the f/4 I think. Another quick question, is the IS worth the extra cash or no?

 

[IanAvery-Leaf]

Cheers guys for the insight, I'm gonna take a little more of a look into the f/4 I think. Another quick question, is the IS worth the extra cash or no?

the Canon 70-200 f4 is sharper than the IS version, and smaller/lighter, I'd go with that. I loved that lens for years until my roommate sent it flying off a table. Replaced it with the Sony GM 70-200 f2.8, its incredibly beautiful and sharp (sharper than Canon's) but it hurt the wallet and its massive/heavy. I almost regret not getting another small cheap f4 since its so much easier to carry around. Definitely keep that in mind: how much weight are you willing to schlep around?

 

[JAlps]

the Canon 70-200 f4 is sharper than the IS version, and smaller/lighter, I'd go with that. I loved that lens for years until my roommate sent it flying off a table. Replaced it with the Sony GM 70-200 f2.8, its incredibly beautiful and sharp (sharper than Canon's) but it hurt the wallet and its massive/heavy. I almost regret not getting another small cheap f4 since its so much easier to carry around. Definitely keep that in mind: how much weight are you willing to schlep around?

Hah good to get a confirmation! Definitely what I'm leaning towards. my tripod is already 13 or so lbs. so at this point my back is gonna be broken no matter how heavy the lens is....