| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/09/2006 03:10:21 PM · #1 |
I'm looking to get a decent telephoto lens.
Currently I have a 18-55 and 60mm f/2.8 macro
Should I go for the 70-200 f/4L or the 200 f/2.8L ?
The latter lacks zoom, but f/2.8 looks tempting.
(And I cant afford the 70-200 f/2.8)
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 03:14:32 PM · #2 |
| I just got the 70-200 f/4L and I am very pleased. Amazingly sharp lens |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 03:16:37 PM · #3 |
It kind of depends on what you're going to shoot. If it's nature/landscapes and miscellaneous, the zoom would be extremely helpful. If it's almost all wildlife and sports, you'd probably want as much reach and fast shutter speed as possible so the extra speed would be nice.
I would get the zoom, personally. Also think about a third-party tele zoom; I have the Tamron one which isn't sold anymore as far as I know, and it's not bad. The focus is pretty tough to get right on close ups, but when you get it right, it's great. I usually use it for nature photography, but it's awesome for sports/animals also. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 03:22:47 PM · #4 |
I loved my F/4 and only parted with it when I upgraded to the 2.8 version. Whilst the 200/2.8 is a stonker I do think you will get more mileage from the F4 and, to be honest, whilst its not cheap I do think its the best 'bang for buck' of any of the Canon Luxury lenses.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 03:29:31 PM · #5 |
have you looked at the 70-300 IS from canon?
from what i could read on the internet, it seems like a better choice than the f4 L lens (or at least an equal, but different, choice) |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 03:29:57 PM · #6 |
A zoom is so different from a prime. You'll need to take a long look at what you shoot, and see if a prime really fits that bill. If so, it is definitely the best optical quality. The Canon 200/2.8 is universally well thought of, even amongst primes. It's fairly fast at f/2.8... you don't want to price the discontinued 200/1.8L! The 200/2.8 is about the same size/weight as the 70-200/4, BTW.
The Canon 70-200/4 is also a great performer; it's as sharp as it's f/2.8 brothers, and smaller/lighter to boot, but no advantage over the 200/2.8.
So in the end, is the f/2.8 speed and the small advantage in optical quality more important *for your style of shooting* than the zoom? Only you can answer that.
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 15:53:58. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 03:30:10 PM · #7 |
the ugly thing is, the most you pay better results you get
the 2.8 is insuperable |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 07:39:07 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by hopper:
have you looked at the 70-300 IS from canon?
from what i could read on the internet, it seems like a better choice than the f4 L lens (or at least an equal, but different, choice) |
70-300IS better than 70-200f/4L ? This is the first i've heard of this. Any reason other than the lower price?
Originally posted by kirbic:
A zoom is so different from a prime. You'll need to take a long look at what you shoot, and see if a prime really fits that bill. If so, it is definitely the best optical quality. |
I mainly shoot for fun - friends, family, nature, landscape, some macros. So far i've been pretty pleased with my prime (EF-S 60mm f/2.8) as my walkaround lens and dont find the lack of zoom problematic at all.
I have a wide angle lens (which i would upgrade someday) for the case where the 60mm doesnt fit the bill for the occasional landscape.
What I currently lack is ability to take decent photographs from a distance - wildlife in national parks, stage performance, candids etc. Cant makeup my mind whether zoom would be more important than the ability to shoot in dim lighting (which the 200/2.8 should be better at)
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 08:19:32 PM · #9 |
| One more thing you might consider is how well does each perform with a teleconverter? From what I understand, both do quite well with the 1.4x but I would expect that the fast prime still has a slight edge in sharpness. If your main goal is reach, it seems to me that the 200/2.8 might be worth a hard look. With the extender you would have 200-280mm of fast, sharp glass. Makes me tingle just to think about it:) But for versatility, the zooms rule, and the 70-200/4.0 lens is also superb. As I'm sure you know, though, you really can't go wrong with either choice. Just trying to help you think it through. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 08:50:22 PM · #10 |
| 70-200 f/4 would be my choice, love it and it works great with a 2x extender, you just have to manually focus. A long fixed is fine if you have a particular thing that you use it for ... like a basketball game from court side. Becasue you will want to frame the photos diffeent in different situations I'de go for the zoom until you find a niche that a long fixed fits. Good luck |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 09:56:16 PM · #11 |
Both are (favorably) reviewed here:
//www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
Originally posted by Nitin:
70-300IS better than 70-200f/4L ? This is the first i've heard of this. |
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 10:30:10 PM · #12 |
If you think the prime might be alright, you might check out the 135 2.0L also. With a 1.4x TC, you're at almost 190mm at 2.8. With a 2x, 270mm at 4.0. And you can shoot the lens by itself at 2.0 for really low light.
Although, a 60mm prime is one thing, a 200mm one is totally different. The field of view with a crop sensor is really tight, and it might get annoying sometimes. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 04:50:11 PM · #13 |
| 70-200 F4 just dropped in price :) |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 05:07:32 PM · #14 |
I LOVE the 200 f/2.8 II. I tried out the 70-200 but found myself being in and around 200 most of the time anyways. It's super-sharp and super-fast, I love it!
All the candids in this album were taken with that lens: //dpchallenge.com/portfolio.php?USER_ID=18191&collection_id=13994
Here are a couple other recent shots with it.
//www.deviantart.com/deviation/37417156/?q=by%3Adelacorr+sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps
//www.deviantart.com/deviation/37333621/?qo=2&q=by%3Adelacorr+sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps
//www.deviantart.com/deviation/30700875/?qo=10&q=by%3Adelacorr+sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps
//www.deviantart.com/deviation/29541354/?qo=21&q=by%3Adelacorr+sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps
Not only is it really sharp and fast, the resolution is great -- the prints I have made from it look fantastic. It also sharpens very well in post-processing. The contrast is awesome and it is just a fun lens!
Enjoy,
Lee
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 05:27:32 PM · #15 |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 05:31:48 PM · #16 |
one more vote for the sigma 70-200 ex dg hsm apo...it's a fantastic lens. Right up there on image and build quality with the top of the line nikkor and canon versions in my opinion...and yes, i've used all three.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 05:42:11 PM · #17 |
I used to have the Sigma, but found that it was a bit hit and miss as far as the autofocus was concerned. It was a little slow so I found that when shooting moving subjects it would give a soft appearance due to being out of focus.
Since selling it and moving up to the Canon 70-200 F4 I have had much more success. I also got less chromatic abberation with the canon. Strangely, the colour seemd a little nicer on the sigma, but a touch of saturation in photoshop sorts that out. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 05:43:57 PM · #18 |
how old was your sigma? I'm guessing it wasn't the HSM. My 70-200 with HSM is way faster than Nikon's 80-200 2.8D ED
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:56:13 PM · #19 |
Thanks! There are great.
On the average, how far from the subject were you in these?
This one's outside my budget (both cost and size)
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
If you think the prime might be alright, you might check out the 135 2.0L also.
Although, a 60mm prime is one thing, a 200mm one is totally different. The field of view with a crop sensor is really tight, and it might get annoying sometimes. |
135 f2 is also outside my budget.
You summed up my dilemma exactly.. 60mm prime works most of the time, i'm wondering if 200 prime would be too tight in most situtations.
Originally posted by Bobster:
70-200 F4 just dropped in price :) |
Where? pricegrabber shows 575 (same as last week)
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:02:30 PM · #20 |
These were taken with my Sigma 70-200 2.8
 
  |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:17:57 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Nitin:
This one's outside my budget (both cost and size) |
Not nearly as pricey but still fairly large is the sigma 100-300 f4. Been playing with one this evening, it is an excellent lense.
edit: my bad, its more expensive. I must have been thinking of the L lense at 1100 bucks. Anyway, still a damn nice lense if you feel like going a bit crazy. Found online for $825 or so. 899 at BH.
Message edited by author 2006-08-10 23:23:50. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:33:51 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Nitin:
This one's outside my budget (both cost and size) |
Sorry, missed that part. How about Sigma's 135-400 4.5-5.6?. Slower, especially at the long end. But, it's $589 at B&H. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:06:30 PM · #23 |
isn't the sigma 70-200 2.8 about the same price as the 70-200 f/4L?
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:13:20 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by deapee:
isn't the sigma 70-200 2.8 about the same price as the 70-200 f/4L? |
It's only $749 at Sigma4less
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:28:36 PM · #25 |
| I paid in the $4xx range for my tamron 2.8 - maybe you could get lucky and find one on ebay if you're in a budget. I think I'm going to move up to the 70-200 2.8L IS in a couple years (sooner would be awesome), but it's definitely not a bad lens for now. The focus is decently fast considering how far the focus ring has to go, but it can be pretty loud. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/04/2026 05:12:41 AM EST.
