Lenses comparable to Canon EF 70-200 4.0 L USM

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

11/03/2004 12:34:00 PM · #26

If you already have the Tamron for a short zoom/ walkaround lens, then the Canon 70-200 f/4L is the only way to go. The tripod collar is not necessary. This shot was taken with a lightweight tripod on a breezy night with no collar...

This one was taken handheld with the 1.4x teleconverter...

EDIT- Whoops! That first shot was a leeetle more than 200mm- LOL

Message edited by author 2004-11-03 12:35:49.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

11/03/2004 01:18:30 PM · #27

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

True, but the 70-200 f4L is under $600. How much is that one stop worth?

If I could afford the $800 for the Sigma, I'd go for that. Shooting sports, that 1 stop is very important to me.

A friend has the Sigma, and it's a top quality lens. Not quite the L-range, of course, but still very good.

digistoune

11/03/2004 04:59:11 PM · #28

Sorry but I have more questions about this lens... What sort of macro shots are you able to get out of it, in any? If you have this lens, would you necessarily need the Canon 100mm macro lens?

Thanks again :-)

11/03/2004 05:09:40 PM · #29

These might be borderline macros, but they were taken handheld with the 70-200mm f/4L:

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/03/2004 05:43:16 PM · #30

I was just thinking about the 70-200 f/4 the other day and stumbled across the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. The Sigma has a tripod collar, a hood and comes in a soft case. When you add the high cost of a collar for Canon f/4 and the hood, your almost up to the price of the Sigma f/2.8. Has anyone compared these two? (I'd want to at least have the option of using my tripod for these babies, and isn't a hood a must as well?)

Tyrkinn

Gauti

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/03/2004 05:46:58 PM · #31

Originally posted by tyrkinn:

I don't have comparison between Canon and Sigma, but Canon 70-200 vs similar lenses are herealmost at bottom of page

11/03/2004 05:47:49 PM · #32

As noted earlier, the Canon is a better lens, you don't really need the collar, and it comes with a lens hood.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/03/2004 05:50:07 PM · #33

How much does the difference in f/2.8 and f/4 matter for DOF and bokeh at these focal lenghts? (I don't have an SLR yet)

Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f1.8 ZA

11/03/2004 05:54:43 PM · #34

Originally posted by tyrkinn:

How much does the difference in f/2.8 and f/4 matter for DOF and bokeh at these focal lenghts? (I don't have an SLR yet)

About $545.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/03/2004 06:07:22 PM · #35

Originally posted by digistoune:

The 100mm is vastly superior to the 70-200 for macro work. At 100mm, the closest you can focus with the 100mm macro is about 6 inches, compared to 1.2m with the 70-200 F4L.

Even with extension tubes or teleconverter you can't get close to what a real macro lens will give you. However, you can get some good close up shots with the 70-200.

70-200 F4L, with 25mm extension

ramevi

Sony Alpha a7 II

11/03/2004 06:10:21 PM · #36

Originally posted by tyrkinn:

In addition, using a 2x teleconverter the differrence in fstops does really matter IMHO.

TLL061

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/03/2004 06:12:57 PM · #37

70-200 2.8 lighting fast crisp focus , just an all around great lenses , the 4.0 is a little smaller witch is a good option . the 2.8 sucks carring around sometimes on the big side

TLL061

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/03/2004 06:14:37 PM · #38

i also have a canon 100 300 4.5 witch is not bad outside and is rather cheap

11/03/2004 06:17:30 PM · #39

Originally posted by ramevi:

In addition, using a 2x teleconverter the differrence in fstops does really matter IMHO.

True. You can't use a 2x teleconverter with the f/4L. Only the 1.4x will work (at least on a Digital Rebel).

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/03/2004 06:20:47 PM · #40

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ramevi:
In addition, using a 2x teleconverter the differrence in fstops does really matter IMHO.

True. You can't use a 2x teleconverter with the f/4L. Only the 1.4x will work (at least on a Digital Rebel).

It will work - it just messes up the AF. There is a duct-tape hack that can work in reasonable light though.

Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f1.8 ZA

11/03/2004 06:22:34 PM · #41

OK, it doesn't officially work. Something about duct tape and $700 worth of glass sounds less than optimal.

Message edited by author 2004-11-03 18:23:55.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/03/2004 06:27:47 PM · #42

Originally posted by scalvert:

OK, it doesn't officially work. Something about duct tape and $700 worth of glass sounds less than optimal.

Even more than that, a max aperture f8 lens is a whole lot less than optimal. I.e., you might get it to work, but you probably wouldn't get to do a whole lot of useful things with it anyway.

ramevi

Sony Alpha a7 II

11/03/2004 06:48:39 PM · #43

According to Photozone , the optical quality difference between canon 2.8 70-200mm L and sigma 2.8 70-200mm EX are so close that makes me think about the big bucks difference...

Message edited by author 2004-11-03 18:50:11.

digistoune

11/03/2004 07:11:44 PM · #44

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by scalvert:
OK, it doesn't officially work. Something about duct tape and $700 worth of glass sounds less than optimal.

Even more than that, a max aperture f8 lens is a whole lot less than optimal. I.e., you might get it to work, but you probably wouldn't get to do a whole lot of useful things with it anyway.

So will the 1.4x Tamron work or do you have to use the Canon version?

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/03/2004 07:19:28 PM · #45

Originally posted by scalvert:

...who really needs 200mm x 2 x 1.6 (longest focal x teleconverter x field of view crop)....