# A tale of 3 Lenses 70-200 F4 IS vs 70-200 F2.8 vs 70-300 F4.5 IS



## Maui5150 (Nov 28, 2011)

O.k. Bit of a quandry and looking for suggestions. 

I currently have a t2i and debating moving up to a 7D the 7D replacement or a 5dMkII. That decision has been postponed til early 2012 to see what Canon does. I have been close to pulling a trigger on a 7D a few times.

Current main lenses:

EF 50 F1.4L
EFS 10-22
EF 70-200 F4L (non-IS)
EFS 18-135

I got the 10-22 because I like shooting landscapes and like the wide angle shots
I primarily have the 18-135 as my walk around lens and use the 70-200 next most (though AF sticks around 3m) 

I primarily shoot portrait/fashion or sport (daylight - triathlons). I am a newer photographer, still learning.

While I like the 70-200 F4 I have lost some shots because of non-IS with the sports. I don't anticipate shooting that much at night like football, etc., and shots I lost probably could have been saved shooting faster speed, though might have been pushing the F4 (cyclists going 40 mph) 

F4 IS will help me out a little, the 2.8 Non-IS will be better for shooting fashion (I actually like shooting people with the 70-200 )

The 70-300 gives me IS, I lose a bit of speed, but it also gives me a little more distance, especially on a crop. The IS probably gets me to F3.5 versus my current F4 Non-IS

Weight is a non factor for me.

I am also more than likely going to sell the 18-135 and step up to the 24-105 F4L and interested on comments on that or if there is a better stepping stone for me. Was also debating if the 24-70 was a better selection or is it nice to have overlap (i.e. 70-200 and 24-105 versus 70-200 and 24-70 which gives me a better combo)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2011)

10-22mm + 24-105mm + 70-200mm f/4L IS or 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS would be excellent. Choosing between the 70-200mm f/4L IS and 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS comes down to the extra 100mm vs. variable aperture and f/5.6.

Either of the above are great for versatility, but there are no fast lenses there - your 50/1.4 fills that void.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 28, 2011)

I feel much the same as neuroanatomist - except I might be tempted with the 70-200L f/2.8 II - you could always add a 1.4 to give is the extra reach if need - and still be at f/4

This is based on you moving to a 5DII - where the 70-200 is a fabulous shorter telephoto and the bokeh will become more important

The 24-105 on the 5DII works very well indeed, especially when using f/5.6 or f/8

The 10-22 obviously doesn't fit a 5DII - the 17-40L is a very good lens for landscapes - at f/8 and f/11 it is very very sharp and clear.

Brian


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 28, 2011)

*Reply*

If you shoot sports, you should indeed be looking for the 7D, and likely also the 70-200 2.8, and or the 300 2.8, if you can. The Sigma 120-300 2.8 is cheaper than the Canon version... There's also the 300 f4, an epic lens, but just not quite a 300 2.8!


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 28, 2011)

@Neuroanatomist - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6. Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper. You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS? I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper. 

@Brian - If I could do the 2.8 II trust me, I would. Trying to make do on a budget, but good point on the extenders too. Had forgotten that option to give me more reach. 

Still not sure on the 5DmkII. I like the FF for its little bit better range, but like the AF on the 7D. If the 7D MK II comes in with better IQ and same or better AF, then I am likely to go that route. If they make a more entry FF something that sits in between the 5D MK III and the 7D MKII then that probably gives me the best of both worlds, and obviously another couple hundred to sell the 10-22 and get the 17-40 to keep budget, though 16-25 would be sweet. 

@AprilForever - looked at the 300 F4 and very sweet lens indeed. Not sure I will be shooting sports enough to justify it yet.

If you had to go with the 70-200 F4L IS or the 2.8L Non-IS to shoot occasional outdoor daylight sports like triathlons, and then do some fashion/portrait. 2.8 gives me some more DOF creativity, but the F4 with IS might help me shoot slightly longer to compensate for the aperture differences.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 28, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> @Neuroanatomist - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6. Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper. You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS? I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper.
> 
> @Brian - If I could do the 2.8 II trust me, I would. Trying to make do on a budget, but good point on the extenders too. Had forgotten that option to give me more reach.



The 2.8 is a fine lens, but if I may, with no IS, 2.8 especially in closer ranges becomes even more thinner DOF and so if you lose shots with no IS, the 2.8 will be even harder to lock and maintain focus, especially on moving subjects... It's great if you have it on a tripod and can rule out camera shake, but other than that.... I've shot with both the 70-200 F4 IS and the 70-300 L IS... assuming your talking about the L version of the 70-300, sharpness is not an issue when determining a lens... they are about the same.... if you're talking about the non L version, then yes, the 70-200 wins out. For most outdoor situations, I was able to shoot the 70-300L at the Reno National Championship Air Races with jets going near the speed of sound as well as other WW2 era aircraft flying around 400MPH... I didn't have problems with the lens not catching up or being able to use fast shutter speeds on a sunny day with that lens... Albeit I was at a farther distance than cyclists or even motor sports, but for what it's worth... If you have it in your budget, i'd recommend the L version 70-300 but if you're tighter on cash, the 7D and the 70-200 F4 IS is also a fine combo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> @Neuroanatomist - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6. Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper. You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS? I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper.



No difference in sharpness between the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II has a slight edge (very slight) over both. 

As awinphoto, the 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) is great from a tripod, or the right choice if you'll mainly be shooting sports/events under dim light and the IS MkII version is not in your budget. The f/4L IS is a tad sharper than the f/2.8L non-IS.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 28, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > @Neuroanatomist - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6. Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper. You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS? I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper.
> ...



On my copies; the 70-300L is sharper than the already sharp 70-200f2.8 Mk.II at 100mm (The only test I did was at f5.6 @100mm). This is not a competition between the two, but just to let you know how sharp the 70-300L is since you are worried about losing the 70-200 f4.

Attached is a shot I took with the 70-300L; not sharpened, just cropped 100% without resizing. @ 300mm @ f5.6 on an older 5D.

I tested a 70-200f4 once and it seemed sharper than the 70-200f2.8mk.II : I shot them both at their max apertures, i.e. F4 and F2.8 respectively... I know, not fair fight... but told me how sharp the 70-200 IS F4 is wide open.


----------



## thejoyofsobe (Nov 28, 2011)

my copy of the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L is hella sharp plus it's got the latest generation IS on it. i get a decent keeper rate hand-holding 300mm at 1/10th of second on a crop body.

but if you're more concerned with stopping action in lower light then the 70-200mm f/4 IS is going to help you out more. 

the 70-300mm goes like this:
70-103mm = f/4.0
104-154mm = f/4.5
155-228mm = f/5.0
229-300mm = f/5.6


----------



## papa-razzi (Nov 28, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> I primarily shoot portrait/fashion or sport (daylight - triathlons). I am a newer photographer, still learning.
> 
> While I like the 70-200 F4 I have lost some shots because of non-IS with the sports.



I shoot a lot of sports (my kids). Outdoor - soccer, track, cross country.
The keys to getting a sharp photo are high enough shutter speed, and the AF capability of your camera & Lens.
I have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS (mI), and I have to turn off the IS for sports shooting. Camera movement confuses the IS some times, and I get more keepers with it off. For sports, IS is of no use. Your 70-200 f/4 should be fine if you have decent light. Try bumping up the ISO if it is cloudy and you aren't getting the shutter speeds you need. Light room does a decent job of getting noise out, so I find a higher ISO is a good trade-off in poor light situations.

I have a 24-105 f/4 and I shoot soccer with it and it is amazing, very sharp, good AF.

A 7D is decent up to 1600 ISO, and the AF is really good. It took me some time to learn the different focusing modes, but once I did, it works very well.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 28, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> @Neuroanatomist - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6. Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper. You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS? I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper.
> 
> 
> @AprilForever - looked at the 300 F4 and very sweet lens indeed. Not sure I will be shooting sports enough to justify it yet.



1.
don't be too worried about 70-300 IS L sharpness compared to 70-200 f/4 IS
With copies I tried the 70-300 was actually sharper at 70mm and above 200mm (using TC on the other) and even a trace shaper near 200mm with both lenses bare. The 70-200 was a little sharper elsewhere but only in the middle around 135mm was it noticeably. If you end up mostly shooting 70-85mm and 185mm-280/300mm then the 70-300L is actually sharper.

2.
for sports stuff like 70-200 2.8 non-IS, 300 2.8 non-IS used, 300 f/4 non-IS used are better


----------



## triggermike (Nov 28, 2011)

+1 Pappa-razzi. The IS compensates for your movements, not the subjects movement. Look for faster aperatures to help with moving objects (or use faster/higher ISO's, a la a new 7D.)

The "mode 2" IS, which is for panning, helps with objects moving in a linear fashion - but again this is compensating for your up/down movement while panning, not the subjects movement


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 28, 2011)

Only around 120-165mm was the difference in favor of the 70-200 f/4 IS anything you might notice and then 70-300L has just as large an advantage 70-85mm on the wide side and an even larger advantage above 200mm (suing TC on the other).


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 28, 2011)

WOW. Really wanted to thank folks for taking the time to chime in. So much great feedback and while I can read a dozen reviews of which half the material is over my head, this real life feedback, for what is worth, means a lot. 

Based on what I am hearing the 2.8 IS might hurt me more than help me hand with AF. 

Really brings be down to 70-200 F4L IS versus 70-300 F4-5.6L IS (and yes I was thinking the L to one of the posters, not the non L version) and the more I hear the feedback on the 300 being sharper at the extreme ends, then it sounds like for my portrait work, below 100 it is either sharper or the same, I may give up a little bit in the middle, but as I get closer to 200 and beyond, I start getting the advantage back. 

Pulled the trigger on a 24-105 F4L today on a RytherCamera Cyber Monday sale. $899 real hard to pass up, though have heard some customer service nightmares, mainly Bait and Switch... So at least AMEX has been good to me resolving issues, so think I am o.k. Won't sell my 18-135 just yet, but with my hood, should bring my cost on the 24-105 down to $700 or so. 

Difference is $230 between the 70-200 F4L IS and the 70-300 F4-5.6L IS is really not that much for an extra 100m worth of range with similar performance and on my T2i or 7D if I go that route, that is actually 160m more.

Not perfect but I think gives me better balance, extended range and only one lens to replace should I go FF in the future

Thanks again for the great feedback


----------



## Zo0m (Nov 28, 2011)

I think you'll get a nicer subject seperation (DOF) with the f2,8 compared to the other choices... I suppose you could go with the non-IS version with a monopod (for shooting in limited light) or the IS2 as the deluxe option...


----------



## Picsfor (Nov 28, 2011)

If i've got this right, you should have a hand held picture of St Pauls shot at 1/20th sec @ f6.3, with lens extended to around 207mm. 5D2 at 1600 iso.

You can see why i like this lens! It's the 70-300...


----------



## Tinnunculus (Nov 28, 2011)

In your place, I would decide between the sigma 100-300 F4 and canon 70-200 F2.8 + 1.4x extender. The 70-300Â´s long and dark F5.6 end is not very good for sports I think. 
With the sigma 100-300 (people on the web say its fast and sharp) you would have to live with the 100mm*1.6 beginning (could be too long for portrait in a small studio). With canon you have to mount the extender for the extra reach, and it might be a bit softer with the extender too (who knows?).
So the canon gives you kind of usable 70-280 f2.8-4 combined with the extender, which is the best choice I think.
Oh and consider using a tripod or monopod, itÂ´s less flexible when composing than IS, but fights shake effectively too.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 29, 2011)

I'll chime in with another recommendation for the Canon 70-300mm L. My copy is tack sharp at all focal lengths, and really shines at 70mm and 300mm - even wide open. I've used and compared my 70-300mm L with various 70-200mm Ls and eg Sigma telezooms (except the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II), and my 70-300mm L is as sharp as any of the others (eg a good 70-200mm L f/4), and sharper than most (eg 70-200mm f2.8 IS mk I). Some copies of the f2.8 mk II might be a tad sharper, as Neuroanatomist points out, and as he says - it's not much (critical pixel peeping level, I expect).

The weight, balance, accurate & fast AF, great IS, build quality and range of focal length are what convinced me to buy and keep the 70-300mm L. And as has been pointed out in thejoyofsobe's post - it retains its aperture at a decent rate (eg still f5.0 till 228mm!) Of course f2.8 is more glass, letting in more light, but you pay by lens weight. Anyway, I consider truly 'fast' f1.8 or more.

Maui5150, I hope that you will make a purchase that meets your needs and that you'll capture many good photos with it. As you indicated, the difference in price between the 70-200mm L f4 and 70-300mm L f4-5.6 is only $230, which I really agree isn't much for the extra mm you're getting!

Best regards

Paul


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 29, 2011)

The Joy (or is that pain) of photography on a budget is oh so many decisions. As my father always said... always nice to want things. The 70-300L gives me a decent compromise and maybe in the future I step up to the 70-200 F2.8 II and then a 300 or 400 prime. 

Still very much appreciate everyone's feedback and thank you greatly for sharing your thoughts and experiences as well as some awesome photos. Just stunning


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 5, 2011)

Just a follow-up for anyone else in the quandry...

Pulled the trigger on the 24-105 F4L. In the end I decided that would be a solid upgrade since I use the 18-135 so much as an every day lens, and the 24-105 should be a big step up.

All the 70-200s are out of the picture because of loosing distance... Yes that on again off again debate of 5DMKII vs 7D vs 5DMKIII when ever vs 7DMKII when ever came to an end... And as alluded to, I am entering the full frame world. Pulled the trigger on a lightly used 5DMKII... had been tempted to go new, but also had seen that the person selling it was a serious audiophile, so there is definitely a level of trust when I see people who sell $4K pieces of high end audio and the recipients are happy... Gives me a much higher degree of comfort than the listings I see when the person says their are only 2 clicks on the body, but the serial in the EOSinfo does not match the serial on the bottom of the body...

I am also looking forward to my 50 1.4 being a 50 again. Sometimes when I shoot in a tighter room, I wish for more room, and loosing the crop factor will definitely make the lenses feel different... 

So... Will be swapping out my 10-22 for a 17-40 which seems like should be even price wise... But the dilema.

Do I now consider 70-300 F4-5.6L versus the 100-400? 

My 70-200 F4 Non-IS was pretty much really a 112-320, so the 70-300 will get me a lot closer and pretty much the same reach. Then again... If I keep my t2i as a second body, the 70-300 becomes a 112-480 on that if I need to have more reach, though give up some IQ

Good call to BrianSquib. Really was in the 7D or what is coming out in Spring, but what made the decision in the end, I am doing some fashion shoots in the next couple of weeks, almost pulled the trigger on a 5DMKII week rental, so figured for the $200 that was going to cost me for upgraded IQ, I should be able to jump out of the 5DMKII if I really wanted to and actually be ahead of the game money wise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> Do I now consider 70-300 F4-5.6L versus the 100-400?



Depends on whether or not you _need_ the extra 100mm. If you plan to shoot subjects where you'll be focal length-limited, the 100-400mm is the better choice. As a general purpose telezoom, I'd get the 70-300 L or the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. I have the latter, and it's an amazing lens on FF, great indoors (thanks to f/2.8) and outdoors. The 70-300 L with it's 1-2 stops slower aperture will not be as useful indoors (unless you're using flash).

Personally, I use my 100-400mm quite a bit - but almost exclusively on my 7D for shooting birds. I have considered getting the 70-300 L for use on my 5DII, particularly as a travel lens. I still might, but I'll likely pick up a 24-70mm first, since I tend to prefer faster lenses and the 24-105mm, while it's a great lens, usually requires a flash for indoor ambient light shooting.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 5, 2011)

Majority of my indoor work is with strobes, so I think the 24-105 will be fine. Would prefer to get faster glass, but all things in good time. I think where I have been thinking about adding speed is maybe going for a 16-35 F2.8L version I over the 17-40 F4L. Probably will be around a $300 investment more compared to the straight swap of EF-S 10-22. Will take some hunting to find a decent one.

the 70-200 2.8 IS II would definitely be the preferred lens but also winds up being much more expensive. You get what you pay for, but on a budget, I have to make some compromises


----------



## Flake (Dec 5, 2011)

Sorry Picsfor, but I'm not convinced the St Pauls shot is sharp, front to back difficult to say without a 100% crop, but if they look a bit soft then they are generally worse at 100%

I'd reccomend that you sell the 70 - 200mm f/4 and buy a Sigma 120 - 300mm F/2.8 OS, especially as you've mentioned that you plan to use the lens for sports photography. This lens will allow four times as much light in as the 70 - 300mm f/5.6 L or alternatively a couple of Iso stops, the OS system is just as effective as the Canon IS version, and if you want to use it as a portrait lens the extra length will allow you to develop even more bokeh than the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L I know at least one high end wedding photographer using this lens in preference to the 70 - 200mm.

Drawbacks - It weighs a ton and it's huge - any 300mm f/2.8 is inevitably going to be big, you'll need a monopod. It costs more than the 100 - 400mm or the 70 - 300mm, but you can always sell the 70 - 200mm f/4 to offset this. Filters for the 105mm lens cost a bomb!


----------



## funkboy (Dec 5, 2011)

I would add to the conversation that in this day & age, any non-IS telephoto I'd buy would have to be f/2.0 or faster unless most work was being done from a tripod. Granted, I use a 40D so I don't have the luxury of being able to crank the camera up to ISO6400 for more shutter speed...

Something you may want to consider is that you seem to have two separate needs here:


portrature
sports

Bear in mind that the bokeh of prime lenses is usually more pleasant than zoom lenses, and very wide apertures throw the background further out of focus. You've already got the 50mm f/1.4, which is a great starting point. I think an 85 f/1.8 or (if your budget can swing it and you like longer/tighter portrait shots) the 135 f/2L would really be worth looking at as a way to further specialize your lens bag. I find that the 85 is too long for indoor portraits most of the time, but for outdoors it rocks. The 135L is amazing & really throws the background out of focus (it's also fantastic for closer general telephoto work e.g. sports where you can usually get pretty close to the action like cycling), but if your budget doesn't allow for that then the 85 f/1.8 USM is a real bargain.

Having dedicated kit for portraits would mostly alleviate the aperture requirement for your now-dedicated sports telephoto, so the question between the 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-300L IS mostly comes down to one of reach (and if you care about form factor, short/fat extending zoom vs. long skinny internal zoom). Bear in mind that a 70-200 with a 1.4x TC is pretty much the same as having a 100-300, and the new teleconverters are supposed to be even better than the already quite good II version I use on my 135L (& used to use on my 70-20 f/4L non-IS when I had one), and the TC will work with a lot of other lenses as well (mostly not the variable aperture zooms though). But a 70-200 f/4L with a 1.4x TC on it is pretty long so your camera won't fit in a lot of "TLZ" bags designed to hold a 70-200 + body. Also remember that a TC isn't a perfect substitute for a zoom ring (just like IS isn't a perfect substitute for a tripod), but if you can anticipate the situation in advance well enough to know whether you'll need it or not, then it's a very nice option to have the extra reach or extra aperture as the subject dictates.

For me, the main selling point of the new 70-300L vs. similar options is that it's short & fat & therefore fits in compact bags where the 70-200 lenses won't. If that's not a problem for you then I'd go the 70-200 f/4L IS + TC route.


----------



## funkboy (Dec 5, 2011)

Flake said:


> I'd reccomend that you sell the 70 - 200mm f/4 and buy a Sigma 120 - 300mm F/2.8 OS, especially as you've mentioned that you plan to use the lens for sports photography.



The OP mentioned that the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS is already too pricey. That Sigma is over 3 grand!

This f/2.8 Sigma is more in his price ballpark, but I think it's a bit too short for the kind of sports he's shooting & there are probably nicer prime alternatives for portrature.


----------



## Picsfor (Dec 5, 2011)

Flake said:


> Sorry Picsfor, but I'm not convinced the St Pauls shot is sharp, front to back difficult to say without a 100% crop, but if they look a bit soft then they are generally worse at 100%



I think you're missing the rather important point of that picture - a shutter speed of 1/20th second hand held.
Though i don't suppose the shallow DoF from an aperture of f6.3 done the shot many favours either.
Not tripod

You have got to be some extremely special person to hold a 5D2 with a 70-300 on the front, on the South Bank in winter to get a shot as crisp as you're asking. Oh, and the 5D2 has battery grip fitted as well.

I have spent a whole day carrying round the Sigma and it's a good lens, but i do not think it was part of the equation - but i would still opt for this, because it is so much lighter to carry and no noticeable difference in IQ or sharpness.

I too know Wedding Photographers who use the Sigma, and others that hate it - because they want light and simple. It is a horses for courses - my picture was trying to give an idea of what this lens can produce at a push.

The 70-200 is now being sold - but i will not be replacing the Canon 70-300 - if anything gets replaced it will be one of the 5D2 bodies in exchange for a 1DX...


----------



## Flake (Dec 5, 2011)

Picsfor said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Picsfor, but I'm not convinced the St Pauls shot is sharp, front to back difficult to say without a 100% crop, but if they look a bit soft then they are generally worse at 100%
> ...



Hopefully you don't take it as a criticism, but I think the point needs to be that at 1/20th sec it's not producing useable images and would benefit from a tripod. I quite like the shot - shame you weren't able to tripod it - but that's just the way it goes sometimes.

People say that you can get images from the 24 - 105mm IS L as slow as 1/6th and I have managed that, but the number of technically good images is very low, you need to take a few to get a good one!

Most of the longer lenses will now offer a 4 stop IS/OS system, apart from the 100 - 400mm L which offers just two stops and would certainly not be useable at 1/20th

If you need a light & compact lens then the 70 - 300mm is as good a choice as any, but the OP did mention sports photography hence the f2.8 reccomend.

I think a monopod is a good reccomend for any longer lens, it might only give an extra stop, but as some have found, it makes a nice weapon when some scroat takes a fancy to your camera!


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 5, 2012)

You know... as is typical for me... The moment I start entering in the credit card information, I start re-thinking things...

Was doing some fashion shooting last week, and whether in natural light or with strobes, my 70-200 F4 Non-IS was starting to bug me a little. Takes great shots, but I found myself wanting to blow out the back more in some cases, and since moving to the FF 5D MKII I am actually surprised how much I have been shooting the with the 70-200 indoors.

so now, what is a complete change, is I am leaning to the 2.8 IS either MK I or MK II. Missed a few gems on the MK I at or below $1300, and though I know the II is sharper and faster, $700 is $700. 

So it comes down to a couple of days... I will likely see if I can track down a MK I 2.8 in the next day or so for under $1300, otherwise, suck it up and drop the $2K on the MK II.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 5, 2012)

Have you considered the 70-200 IS version I? Maybe there's a few used copies kicking aroundy your area. Ebay has a few at the moment. That would get you around the price of a new non IS mkI with 3 stops of stabalization.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 5, 2012)

I have been hunting the I version. Delayed on one which went for $1300 and have seen a lot go for $1500+ There of course are cherry picked ones with recent date of manufacture as well. I have an Amazon Gift Certificate for $275, so brings the price of a II down to around $1800 currently, so at $1300 versus $1800 I can almost lean frugally to the I version and save the $500, but once it starts pushing $1500, the $300 difference for NEW and Version II becomes negligible. 

I really wanted to stay closer to around $1300, but as it pushes closer to $1500 - $1600, hard not to go for it and go version II

********************
* UPDATE UPDATE *
********************

So the one I was watching on Flea-Bay pushed over $1400 as expected... Probably would have needed to go $1450, if not more...

So went Amazon route for $1800 with my Gift Cert. A little more than I wanted to pay, but still should be a stellar lens


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 5, 2012)

Congrats on the new lens. That one is on my "next" list. I'm still subtly warming the Wife up to it.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 6, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Just a follow-up for anyone else in the quandry...
> 
> Pulled the trigger on the 24-105 F4L. In the end I decided that would be a solid upgrade since I use the 18-135 so much as an every day lens, and the 24-105 should be a big step up.
> 
> ...



I think you will love the 50 on the 5D2 its a great walk around combo
You do know a new 100-400 is coming out? i would wait for that since you currently have the 70-200 for now if you need more reach look a kenko 1.4 TC for now and you can keep using it on future lenses too they are cheap and i love mine

also a friend of mine sold his 70-200 f2.8IS II and bought a 70-200 f2.8 non IS because he said he never used IS and prefered the non IS one. personally i think the IS II is amazing however i have deliberately tried to get some arty sun induced flare in some portraits and get nothing because it's really that good at stopping flare


----------



## ferdi (Jan 6, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> You do know a new 100-400 is coming out?



It's still only a CR2 rumor: http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/canon-ef-100-400-f4-5-6l-is-soonish-cr2/



Maui5150 said:


> [...]
> I found myself wanting to blow out the back more in some cases, and since moving to the FF 5D MKII I am actually surprised how much I have been shooting the with the 70-200 indoors.
> so now, what is a complete change, is I am leaning to the 2.8 IS either MK I or MK II.



If I understood neuro's tech posts correctly, the DOF will be more shallow on FF for the same subject distance and framing.
Did you try the 70-200 f/4 on a 5D?

Anyways, congrats on your purchase. The 70-200 f/2.8 is one of my favourite lenses.
Because of the weight I recommend a comfortable strap (BlackRapid or the like).


----------



## K-amps (Jan 6, 2012)

ferdi said:


> .... If I understood neuro's tech posts correctly, the DOF will be more shallow on FF for the same subject distance and framing.
> ..



I thought for the same *subject distance*, the Crop has more OOF blur, but for the same *framing* the FF has more OOF blur... this is because on the FF, you need to get closer to the subject, thus the ratio of you to the subject vs the subject and the background is larger, where as with the crop, you need to be further back form the subject for the same framing; and when you move back, the ratio of you vs the subject and the subject vs the background becomesless... and that ratio defines the amount of OOF blur.... , the larger the ratio, the more OOF blur is what I understood.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 6, 2012)

Weight has never really been that much of an issue for me, so and extra couple of pounds should not be a big difference.

I do have the 70-200 F4 Non-IS at the moment, and while it is a sharp and fast lens, I did find a couple times where I had to go to my 85 1.8 for light. I am also really interested to see how the 2.8 performs AF wise with less light. I have had times where my F4 Non-IS hunts, and everything I have read the 2.8 IS II does extremely well in this regard. 

Given my 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, I just started to notice that I wanted a little more speed with range over the 70-200 F4, and with my 24-105 F4 L as my main lens, I think the 2.8 IS II was a great comprise as well as a lens that I probably will never have to upgrade. 

Was debating swapping the 24-105 for a 24-70, but despite the extra stop in aperture, I find the 24-105 slightly sharper which I like. 

I think the last lens I need at the moment is a wide. I have been debating the 17-40 F4L which is decent, but again, F4, and pretty much is almost an swap of my EF-S 10-22 price wise., though I think cherry picking a used 16-35 2.8 I will be the way I go. 

So current bag 

{GAP} Wide Angle (16-35 or 17-40}
24 - 105 F4 L IS
50 1.4
70 - 200 F2.8 IS II
85 1.8

Might look into a TC 2X to extend the 70-200 as a compromise over the 100-400, though if a version comes out next year, that might be nice, but right now, I want at least a F4 which is why the current offering is out. 

Then again, I would not mind finding a FD 400, 500 or 600 at a decent price


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 6, 2012)

K-amps said:


> ferdi said:
> 
> 
> > .... If I understood neuro's tech posts correctly, the DOF will be more shallow on FF for the same subject distance and framing.
> ...



That has been my experience with FF vs Crop. In some of my tight spaces I could not even consider the 70-200 F4 on my T2i, but it is much more useable on the 5D MKII. OOF Blur to my simple understanding is a function of Aperture, Distance to Subject and Focal Length. So with a FF, you can change the DTS which allows for more playing around in tighter confines. 

This is also why I think with a FF if you are doing close up portraits with a lens wide open and have something F2.8 or below, you can even start get OOF on the face a lot more than you can on a APS-C sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> You do know a new 100-400 is coming out? i would wait for that...



Really? When? 

A new 24-70 was coming out in 2009. A lot of people recommend waiting for that, too. Even more people recommended waiting after the CR2 rumor in 2010. We're still waiting...


----------



## ferdi (Jan 7, 2012)

K-amps said:


> ferdi said:
> 
> 
> > .... If I understood neuro's tech posts correctly, the DOF will be more shallow on FF for the same subject distance and framing.
> ...



Yes but what if you have both the same subject distance and the same framing, i.e. only a different focal length?


----------



## K-amps (Jan 7, 2012)

ferdi said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > ferdi said:
> ...


 I will defer that one to Neuro ;D


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 9, 2012)

I think it is a little more complicated than that. Some issues like vignetting that are inherent to a certain lens will respond differently on a crop body than a FF, and in some cases like that, a crop body can improve the performance.

Then again, wide angle lenses on a FF are not that wide on a crop for the same reason. 

For me, i find it easier to get bokeh on a FF because of my focal length choices and distance to subject.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2012)

K-amps said:


> ferdi said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



If you have the same distance and same framing, but different focal length, the FF will have shallower DoF for the same aperture, because it will need a longer focal length. Example - 85mm f/2 on APS-C at the same distance will frame like 135mm f/2 on FF. 

K-amps, you're correct that if you keep everything the same but the sensor - same aperture, same distance, same focal length, the crop sensor will actually have shallower DoF. But we don't usually care much about that because it's a different picture. So, if you're taking a head shot on FF, you _could_ get more OOF blur (shallower DoF) by switching to a crop body and shooting with the same lens at the same distance - but then you'd have a shot of just the subject's eyes and nose (so, you'd move back to frame the head, and then your DoF would be deeper than with FF).


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 13, 2012)

Just an update. Got the beast in yesterday.

Talk about solid construction... This is a lens you probably could soundly beat a mugger about in the head with, pound in some nails in a 2x4 and still take great pictures.

Weight: not really a factor to me. Does dwarf the 70-200 F/4L Non-IS girth wise, but have heard that can be a great thing... :

Speed... Seems fast, then again I am waiting for some of these to be sick hyper fast.

Sharp and IQ... I notice it in the view finder even. I was shooting fashion yesterday, and swapping between my 24-105 F/4L and the 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, and just "felt" the difference looking through... meaning I spent more and more time trying to work this lens in when I could, even though shooting in a tighter space. Lens is sharp. Annoyingly sharp. The model likes to wear color contacts and bugs me because the eyes are so clear, I can tell that their are color contacts because I can start making out the iris patterns

Something tells me my 5D MKII loves it too. When I put on another lens, I could swear I hear the body let out a little sigh or cry.


----------

