# Which 70-200?



## Valvebounce (Dec 9, 2013)

Hi Folks.
I am making a Christmas wish list, thought I might try my luck with one more expensive gift! Something in the 70-200 range! 
It will be second hand, used, pre loved or whatever you prefer to call it! 
I am thinking in the £400 to perhaps £500 budget, so it looks like I may be able to get an F4L IS, F2.8L non IS or I have seen Sigma F2.8 with IS for about the same price. All price estimates are from completed eBay sales, and the F4 for sale locally. 

Which lens would you go for and why? 

What are the chances of getting a poor copy of each individual lens?

Edit. I am not specifically in to thin DOF pictures though I do understand I can stop an F2.8 down to F4 should I wish to but it doesn't work the other way! 

Thanks for any insight into this dilemma.

Cheers Graham.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 9, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> I am thinking in the £400 to perhaps £500 budget, so it looks like I may be able to get an F4L IS, F2.8L non IS or I have seen Sigma F2.8 with IS for about the same price.



Don't underestimate the usefulness of IS with these focal ranges, so only get the non-IS if you really intend to shoot mostly at high shutter speeds... for Canon f4 vs Sigma f2.8 refer to the usual review sites, mostly Sigma vs. Canon means better or same iq @ lower price vs faster and more precise af.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=806&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2



Valvebounce said:


> What are the chances of getting a poor copy of each individual lens?



Even new there is a small chance, but it's much more likely when buying used - you cannot see humidity damage or decentering from the outside, and the lens has no "usage" counter unlike a camera shutter. The usual advice is to buy lenses only after checking (craiglist and similar) or pose very precise questions to an ebay seller so that you have the option to return the lens if the answers proved wrong. Be sure to check by shooting a a test chart for lack of sharpness and decentering vs. test shots @ the digital picture.


----------



## Menace (Dec 9, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > I am thinking in the £400 to perhaps £500 budget, so it looks like I may be able to get an F4L IS, F2.8L non IS or I have seen Sigma F2.8 with IS for about the same price.
> ...



Good advice here.

As you are not into shallow DoF, I'd suggest getting the excellant 70-200 f4 IS - provided its a decent copy and you can test it prior to purchase. You'll love it!


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 9, 2013)

Menace said:


> Good advice here.



Thanks, I have been lingering about what 70-xyz to buy for quite a while back then :-o ...



Menace said:


> As you are not into shallow DoF



... just one addition that imho is often lost in the debate: at least on full frame f4 @200mm already *is* very shallow and has nice background blur, of course depending on the camera-subject-background relation, that's why I'm also very happy with my 70-300L resulting in f4.5 @200mm. Except for the dedicated portrait style larger apertures tend to fall into the "creative potential, but not always practical to use" department.


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 12, 2013)

Hi Folks.
Sorry for not getting back to you, I am in the middle of Cumbria in the fells on holiday and Internet is sporadic at best! 
Hi Menace, are you saying that the iq is similar but canon focus faster, I have the sigma 150-500 and am happy with the focus speed of that lens, I know it could always be faster but at what cost (both financially and mechanical wear wise).
I did check out the test charts. I think weather sealing may be a plus on the canon lens after the Goodwood Revival this year when we got soaked and my camera holster was not waterproof! 
So F4 IS is better than Sigma F2.8 OS is better than F4 non IS? True or false please.

Cheers Graham.


----------



## Zv (Dec 12, 2013)

I see you have all crop bodies, f/4 can be limiting in low light portraits and events. I found myself using mine at f/4 all the time (works well wide open btw) with ISO 1600 on a 7D when indoors. I could have used f/2.8 for sure. 

Full frame is a different story and I have no problems with f/4. 

I highly recommend IS for telephoto lenses. Even if shooting at 1/focal length and above it makes the viewfinder stable and composing images easier. The IS on the Canon is phenomenal. You can easily get 4 stops out of it. Makes the lens twice as useful because you're less likely to need a tripod. 

I wouldn't worry too much about copy variation but test it out before buying if possible. The IS is noisy btw, this is normal! The f/4 IS is built solid and I wouldn't worry about the condition it's in if used. That thing can take a beating.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 12, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> So F4 IS is better than Sigma F2.8 OS is better than F4 non IS? True or false please.



Neither, because the order is different considering which dimension (max. aperture, sharpness, bokeh, weight, bulk, price, IS (shutter speed). Unless you make up your mind and tell us what you want to shoot and what your preferences are asking such a question won't get you valid answers.


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 12, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > So F4 IS is better than Sigma F2.8 OS is better than F4 non IS? True or false please.
> ...



And not only that I asked about a different lens on my second post from on my first post! D'oh I threw in the F4 non IS and meant the F2.8 non IS. 
I'm price limited, I'm also pondering trying for a 5D mk1 in the not too distant future (birthday wih list) as I keep hearing how much better FF is than crop. These pro workhorses seem to be going quite cheaply on eBay, seems like a way to dip a toe in full frame! 

I guess I would list priorities as IQ (is that sharpness & bokeh) and fitting my used cost budget, I think my skill level may limit me to not needing the extra thin DOF of the 2.8 for low light!? :-\

Main use probably motor racing and anything else that seems to want the 70-200 range.

Cheers Graham.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 12, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Valvebounce said:
> ...


The f/4 IS is a brilliant lens and has the best IQ in this price range, and if you're shooting motor racing like most pros - around 1/100 to 1/500s to retain some blur in the wheels, f/4 should work well in all but the lowest light. It's nice and light, too, and more versatile than the f/2.8 non-IS. Plus, at 135mm and beyond, it gives plenty shallow DOF for portraits if you're reasonably close to your subject.


----------



## skoobey (Dec 14, 2013)

Pricier = better. Both optically, and IS-vise. 

If you intend on shooting in bright sunlight, shooting with a tripod, shooting with strobes, like something easy to carry around, F4 non-IS is a wonderful lens. So, me, for example see no benefit in a more expensive version, as I mostly shoot studio, and 2.8 IS TWICE AS HEAVY.

If you like to shoot in overcast situations, perhaps some indoor sports, action photography, then 2.8 is a must and IS only makes it better. 

F4IS falls somewhere in between. It's not a sports lens, but it will give you more control if you shoot around the city, or shoot portraits in low light, as you get that help from the IS, and this is the one to get in my opinion. Great IQ, added IS, but no extra weight.

Only reason to get 2.8 with no IS is if you love beautiful bokeh and shooting wide open. Bokeh is pretty much as dreamy as it gets.

Just don't forget the weight, 2.8 is a really really heavy lens.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Dec 17, 2013)

I speak from very little experience with these specific lenses... (just getting into Canon now) yet as someone who is in the same decision making position as you. I have tried out the 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4 in the store. I'm also comparing to previous experience with Pentax 50-135/2.8, Pentax 60-250f/4 (very similar to the Canon 70-300L), the Minolta 70-210/f4 and Minolta 200/2.8 prime. Maybe my experience provides helpful perspective?

I don't have specific, limited interests but shoot a wide variety of subjects. I hike, travel, wander around, do family shots, hand-held macro/close-ups, and I like to play with abstraction and bokeh effects. I've come to appreciate really high quality glass. It's just a hobby though.

I've decided on a 70-200 f4 IS as my telephoto lens (with the 1.4x TC in the back of my mind for the future). I've found an excellent one used.

I loved my 200/2.8 for quality and size but always found it limiting because it's such a specific scope. I know why people love the technical abilities of a 70-200/2.8 and I'd get one... except that they are huge and heavy and I know I wouldn't take it with me too much of the time. I'll likely get an 85/1.8 for portraits and low light work. When the lenses get shorter, I can zoom with my feet. I'm still way ahead in terms of both weight and cost.

I was considering seriously the 70-300L but my Pentax 60-250 is about the same size/weight and it was always on the edge of too heavy for my portability needs. I had always liked my Minolta 70-210/f4 "beercan" but it was a fairly ancient design and super flair prone. But it was small enough I'd be willing to take it with me, and f4 was fast enough most of the time. The Canon 70-200/f4 IS is such a proven, high quality lens. It's the best combination of capabilities and compromises for me.


----------



## mwh1964 (Dec 17, 2013)

With your budget the 70-200 f4 IS without doubt is the answer. If you can stretch the budget you will be happy with the 70-300L. An alternative option is the 135 f2 which kind of gives you everything except IS.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 17, 2013)

Mr_Canuck said:


> I loved my 200/2.8 for quality and size but always found it limiting because it's such a specific scope. I know why people love the technical abilities of a 70-200/2.8 and I'd get one... except that they are huge and heavy and I know I wouldn't take it with me too much of the time.



One remark: It's not just the absolute weight and bulk of the "internal zoom" 70-200 lens types and esp. the f2.8 that might be a problem, but the combination of both because a long *and* heavy lens creates a lot of torsion on the wrist as it works as a lever.

The 70-300 is much thicker but shorter when zoomed in and thus the weight is nearer to the camera, making it much more pleasant to carry around ´... when in doubt try both in a shop.


----------



## Hannes (Dec 17, 2013)

when I got my 70-200 2,8 and put it on a 40D it took a little time before adjusting the grip, most of the weight will be on your left hand instead of right hand.

Anyway, Canon f4 is will give you the best image quality, canon 2.8 will give excellent AF (f2.8 helps a lot), sigma 2.8, same iq as the canon 2.8 but stabilised but lacking the weather seal. The sigma would be my choice actually.


----------



## nc0b (Dec 17, 2013)

Canon lenses hold their value, so I have stayed with their offerings except for a Zeiss 18mm super wide. I own both of the Canon 70-200 IS lenses, (2.8 version II and f/4), and each has their place. Outdoors in the daylight the f/4 is just fine, though the IS is noisy compared to the f/2.8. Both take the 1.4X TC version III quite well, and it doesn't weigh much or extend the lens enough to worry about. With your budget, go for the Canon f/4. You will be able to get your money out of it if you later want a faster lens or longer zoom. 

The f/4 isn't as sharp wide open as the f/2.8, but it is half the weight and half the cost. The f/2.8 focuses faster than the f/4, if that is an issue for your subjects. I will take the f/2.8 on a 4 mile hike, but on a 10 mile trek it would be a bit much. The 2.8 is a phenomenal portrait lens, and I find the weight hand held a non-issue. I have never used it on a tripod, the IS is that good. For indoor events the f/2.8 is worth its weight in gold, pun intended. 

While I started with crop bodies, (60D & 40D), once I bought a used 5D Classic I have used the crops much less. The focal lengths of 24-105 and 70-200s are just more useful to me with full frame. When shooting wildlife (raptor or antelope for example) I need more reach than even the 1.6X crop factor. The 400mm f/5.6 is my go to lens for these subjects. If you get a used 5D Classic, pick one with a serial number that starts with a 2 or 3 so you have the better LCD screen. After getting spoiled with FF, I bought a used 6D, and I couldn't be happier with its all around performance.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Dec 28, 2013)

Several months ago I bought the Canon 70-200 2point8 new - the original nonIS version. Bought it because it was a thousand bucks cheaper than the ISii version. Fantastic lens, no regrets whatsoever. I have read the ISii is sharper but mine is so sharp that I cannot imagine any average person being able to see the difference in real life photographs (as in NOT pictures of line charts). IS would be nice, but not absolutely necessary IMO due to the excellent high ISO range of modern cameras. (I use it on a 5D2). Of course I also use a tripod quite a bit. Often use it with the 1.4xii extender with equally good results.


----------

