| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/28/2010 10:19:15 AM · #1 |
Okay it's time to increase my range I've decided. So I've been looking at the 70-200mm range.
I've got my budget, and basically I have 2 choices and not sure what to do.
Canon 70-200mm F4 IS USM
or
Canon 70-200mm F2.8 USM
so the question is, faster lens and no Image Stabilization, or the F4 lens with Image Stabilization? They are both roughly the same price and in the budget I have set for a new lens.
I've tried to look at photos here on this site taken by both lenses to see if it will help me decide but they both look like really good, so the question is to IS or not to IS?
Any and all advice welcome (even if that is maybe another lens I didn't list here).
|
|
|
|
12/28/2010 10:23:03 AM · #2 |
| That's a really tough question. The IS will give you more than the 1-stop difference between the f/4 and f/2.8 lenses, but it will do nothing to help you keep your shutter speed up. So in the end, you need to decide, based on your uses, what is more important. |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 10:36:53 AM · #3 |
As kirbic said, choose your use, and that'll decide the lens..
Here are the advantages of the 2.8 lens:
Faster shutter speeds, this means you can work with moving subjects easier
More bokeh / less DOF - this will allow you to isolate your subject from the background (nice for sports especially)
Here is the great thing about IS:
Low light shooting of non-moving subjects is much better than the 2.8 version without IS.
For my $$, it'd be the 2.8, of course, if I had the money it'd be the 2.8 IS II... :)
---
As for other lens choices?
100-400L - a bit slow, but it'll definitely boost your range.. Works great in decent light, but give it low-contrast subjects and it won't AF reliably in questionable light, and the f/5.6 long end is fine in good light, but blows chunks in low light conditions...
200 f/2.8L - what a tube of goodness... Having used one of these a few times, I can tell you this is a hard lens to beat, and they can be found relatively cheaply, this would be a good choice if you intend to mostly use the longer end of the 70-200L..
300 f/2.8L - well, of course you can't afford it, who can? Still, WOW, what a lens, I suggest trying to sell a child or mortgage your house - then you'll be able to buy a really special piece of glass... :)
Message edited by author 2010-12-28 10:41:08. |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 10:37:38 AM · #4 |
Get the 2.8. and write the letter "IS" next to "USM" with a permanent marker, .
that should do :) it's a win win situation. Since you're doing that, get a red marker, make a ring on tip of the lens, and put "L" next to "2.8"... oh boy, now you got the perfect lens
Message edited by author 2010-12-28 10:38:34. |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 10:39:27 AM · #5 |
| Looking at your portfolio seems a 2.8 and a tripod would be a good choice.. |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 10:57:20 AM · #6 |
I have the 2.8 IS and shoot at the 2.8 end a lot. The f/4 is lighter and smaller, which might make a difference for a few people, but if I had to make your choice I think I would go with the f/2.8 even if it meant no IS.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2010 11:02:51 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by leaf:
...I would go with the f/2.8 even if it meant no IS. |
IS = Fast Shutter speed = Tripod |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 11:04:49 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by leaf:
...I would go with the f/2.8 even if it meant no IS. |
IS = Fast Shutter speed = Tripod |
Well, that's one formula...
But I prefer this one..
IS + Fast Glass = No Tripod... :) |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 11:06:51 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by leaf:
...I would go with the f/2.8 even if it meant no IS. |
IS = Fast Shutter speed = Tripod |
Well, that's one formula...
But I prefer this one..
IS + Fast Glass = No Tripod... :) |
Speaking of -- Why the heck hasn't Canon released a 50 f/1.4 (or similar) with the latest IS system? That would be a dream for nighttime street photography... |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 11:08:39 AM · #10 |
| I would go for the 2.8. With that you have a beautiful portrait lens, a decent sports lens (IS won't matter that much for sports since you will be keeping the shutter speed up) and a good all around lens. If possible though I would maybe look at holding off a bit and saving a bit more cash to get the 2.8 with IS. I have been able to get nice sharp images hand held around 1/60th of a second on the 200mm rage. And with the 70-200 2.8IS II out the older model is even cheaper. |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 11:12:36 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
...Speaking of -- Why the heck hasn't Canon released a 50 f/1.4 (or similar) with the latest IS system?... |
They know, we won't be able to afford it LOL |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 03:07:22 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Aarthek:
Okay it's time to increase my range ...
Canon 70-200mm F4 IS USM
or
Canon 70-200mm F2.8 USM |
Both are quality lenses. The f/2.8 is somewhat larger and heavier than the f/4.
With IS the f/4 is better suited for hand held pictures. If you take a lot of hand held then the f/4 might be the better choice. If you take more tripod mounted shots using neutral density or polarizers then the f/2.8 might be the better choice.
Another Consideration:
You might later consider a 2X tele-converter to increase your range further. The Canon Extender EF 2X II yields exceptional quality images. A disadvantage of the f/4 is that autofocus does not work when the extender is used. Autofocus works fine with the f/2.8.
To show you the extender can be used without autofocus... here is a hand-held, hand-focused and panned image I took with the 70-200mm f/4 and attached Canon Extender EF 2X II:
1/500s f/13.0 at 365.0mm iso800 - Canon EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM - 04/22/2010
|
|
|
|
12/28/2010 04:53:20 PM · #13 |
When i was looking at purchasing my 70-200 both cost and weight were a major consideration.
I also wanted IS as I like this feature and I had read to many reviews where people were trading up to the IS copy.
Also read many reviews where people were trading down to the f4 because of weight.
Suggest getting a hold of these lenses and testing them for size and weight.
I love my 70-200 f4 IS, it is light and not to big.
Yes, I would love the f2.8 version but it is just to big and heavy for me.
I also have the canon 1.4xII tele-converter and find this works nicely with the lens and still has auto focuses.
Cheers |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 05:17:08 PM · #14 |
The f2.8 lens may be a better choice. Does you 50d take advantage of the f2.8 aperature. On my 5DII, my focus system uses cross type focus sensors. Only when used with a f2.8 or faster lens. This may be something to look into. Also, it is nice to be able to see in low light. F2.8 really helps, looking through the viewfinder. Especially when looking at stars and the like. Weight wise, like everything else you get used to it. 3 pounds is really not that bad.
Im sure the boken would be better too. I love mine and only have praise for it. |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 06:06:23 PM · #15 |
wow.. lots to consider.. in some ways helped in other ways still just as wondering..
I may have to see if I can find someone that rents these lenses and see if I can play with each for a day or so..
thanks for the feedbacks..
|
|
|
|
12/28/2010 06:09:59 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by RamblinR:
When i was looking at purchasing my 70-200 both cost and weight were a major consideration.
I also wanted IS as I like this feature and I had read to many reviews where people were trading up to the IS copy.
Also read many reviews where people were trading down to the f4 because of weight.
Suggest getting a hold of these lenses and testing them for size and weight.
I love my 70-200 f4 IS, it is light and not to big.
Yes, I would love the f2.8 version but it is just to big and heavy for me.
I also have the canon 1.4xII tele-converter and find this works nicely with the lens and still has auto focuses.
Cheers |
I am the same - weight does matter for me.
I have a question re Extender - why on f/4 Autofocus works with 1.4x II and not 2x II ?? |
|
|
|
12/28/2010 06:12:07 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by marnet:
I am the same - weight does matter for me.
I have a question re Extender - why on f/4 Autofocus works with 1.4x II and not 2x II ?? |
You lose 1 stop with the 1.4x, 2 stops with the 2x, so the f/4 becomes f/5.6 wide open with the 1.4x, and f/8 wide open with the 2x. Canon bodies, with the exception of 1-series bodies, will only AF up to f/5.6. 1-series bodies will AF up to f/8 |
|
|
|
12/29/2010 03:33:33 AM · #18 |
Another one to review may be the new 70-300L IS USM.
I don't know what application you want this for but it is getting good reviews. |
|
|
|
12/29/2010 04:49:13 AM · #19 |
Here's reasons why I (me and me only) would go with the f/4 IS:
1) Lighter
2) Sharper
3) Better for outdoor daylight FLASH photography ---
And here's a big one. I'm often limited to x-sync speed in open light, because I use strobes outside. That's as fast as I can go, IS or no-IS or 2.8 or f/4. I'm probably at f/8-f/11 anyway. Now, common photographic knowledge states that my shutter speed should be equal to or greater than my focal length (on a full frame camera), if I'm hand-holding the camera, to prevent camera shake blur. Multiply that by 1.6 if I'm using an APS-C sensor camera. That gives me a minimum shutter speed of 1/320. But, I can't go over x-sync of 1/200. What to do? Turn on the IS. It's 4-stop stabilization ability easily makes up for that less than 1-stop difference between 1/200 and 1/320.
I can now more easily drag the shutter if I want to balance more ambient into my shot, because I can now easily handhold down to 1/30 of a second.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/08/2025 04:54:49 AM EST.
