# Considering the 70-200 f4 is for my next lens



## KKCFamilyman (Aug 29, 2012)

Hey I have a dilemma. I have a 5d3 with the following
24-105
50 1.4
Various speedlites

I take Candids of the kids but I find myself wanting more reach. I rented the 70-200 f4 is and it was pretty nice. I currently can get it for $1100 from a reputable dealer but unsure if that's a good price or if I should hold out to see what else is offered by canon for the fourth quarter. I also want the 24-70 ii but would have to pay of the 70-200 first if I get it. So add focal range or a stop of light with the 24-70 ii or just wait. Any suggestions?


----------



## kennephoto (Aug 29, 2012)

I would say get the 70-200 F4 for sure! I had the non IS version and I really liked it. I would imagine the IS version is even better. If you rented it and liked it then you cant really go wrong.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Aug 29, 2012)

Thanks. I just wish I rented it at home. I got it for a trip and only used it for a handful of shots but they were great shots. I just don't want to feel compelled because of the deal but then again if it's going to likely rise a few hundred then I would just buy it now.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 29, 2012)

I vote for the 70-200, although you might also want to consider the 70-300L. It's about 0.5 lb heavier than the 70-200 f/4 and you lose a fraction of a stop from 105-200mm, but it gains you 100mm at the long end, which comes in handy at zoos and when you're in the stands.


----------



## kennephoto (Aug 29, 2012)

You could always buy it, use it for a while and sell it if you no longer like it or if it doesnt fit your needs. I buy and sell lenses a lot.


----------



## bearbooth (Aug 29, 2012)

I have exactly the same as you.
24-105
50 1.4
70-200 f4 IS

I just brought the 70-200 a few days ago and its nice. I spent a day with it on my 5d3 with canon strap and it was fine, not too heavy.

If you need more reach, you could consider the kenko 1.4x extender, but it will stop it down to f5.6 though, autofocus is fine, at least to my beginner level.

Also your question about the 24-70 mkII, you already have that focus range from the 24-105, so would buying the 70-200 benefit you more now? or at least the period from now till the release of the 24-70 mk II
I know the new upcoming mkII is a completely different lens and you cant compare it to the 24-105, it should have better components, f2.8, better everything, but its release date has been delay.


----------



## StephenC (Aug 29, 2012)

I've got the 70-200 f/4 IS and it is a fantastic lens, I think it is better than my 24-105 (hopefully to be upgraded to a 24-70 soon). I do miss the reach the crop camera used to give me, so I guess there is an argument for the 70-300 (which I haven't used). On the other hand, with the big megapixels the 5D III gives there is always the option of just cropping the photo. I would definitely recommend the IS version.


----------



## Menace (Aug 29, 2012)

I used to have the 70-200 f4 - it's was my 2nd L lens and I mainly used it for portraits and absolutely loved it. Its sharp and weight will not be a prob for you. 

As said before, you already have the wide angle covered so go for the 70-200; you'll be pleased you did.

Have fun. Cheers


----------



## LostArk (Aug 29, 2012)

Might I chime in and suggest the 135 f/2L. 

5D2 135L 1/200 f/2 ISO 6400



Street Dreams by Nοah Fence, on Flickr

70-200 f/4 wouldn't have been able to get this shot. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II might have been able to finagle it, but even if I could afford it I wouldn't want to deal with the size and weight. Your 50mm f/1.4 should be able to handle most low light situations your 24-105 can't, so I would question the wisdom of a 24-70 II.


----------



## Cannon Man (Aug 29, 2012)

In your place i would start with improving the most used focal lenght.

To me 85mm 1.2 II is just that and there is no zoom lens or prime under 100mm that can get close to the image quality. I have had the 24-105 and it is just a different world shooting with a good prime.

I also have the 70-200 2.8 IS II, and if you don'r really need the extra stop of light get the f/4 because it's half price and half weight. Just yesterday i took a 3 hour walk with my 1D IV & 70-200 IS II and the whole time i wished i would have had one of my primes or something lighter.

Go for primes is my suggestion. Keep the 24-105 and get the 85 1.2 II. You can do a lot with those lenses.

I am lucky to have the finance and to have this my profession. I use a TS-E 24 3.5 II, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II. But i started with just a 5D Mark II with 24-105 just 3 years ago.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I take Candids of the kids but I find myself wanting more reach.



For more reach at nearly the price of the 70-200/4 there is the 70-300L, sharpness is give or take - you should try that too before you decide. The 70-300L has some advantages (shorter, more reach, newest IS) and some disadvantages (non-constant aperture = f5 at 200mm, only non-Canon tc 1.4x = f8).

The 70-200/4 of course is a classic and good lens, but always looks strangely slim and long for me for something that starts at 70mm/4. For a 70-200mm the f2.8 is the best choice if you are willing to carry it. The really good thing about the 70-200/4 is that there are still rather cheap non-IS versions and you get L optical and build quality.


----------



## pwp (Aug 29, 2012)

There's absolutely no doubt the 70-200 f/4, particularly the non-IS version represents extraordinary value for money. It's compact, light and has IQ to match it with the best. But the suggestions of the far newer L70-300IS also present a fairly compelling option. That extra 100mm....! Matched with your 5D3 the slower apertures shouldn't be a problem because of your ever present option to ramp up the iso and see very little image degradation. The L70-300IS understandably has a lot of fans.

But if it's candids of your kids that you most want to do, then rocket fast AF and premium bokeh would make me tend to suggest the legendary L135 f/2. 

-PW


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2012)

pwp said:


> But the suggestions of the far newer L70-300IS also present a fairly compelling option. That extra 100mm....! Matched with your 5D3 the slower apertures shouldn't be a problem



... speaking of which: I forgot to mention that the 70-300L has another potential disadvantage on the new 5d3/1dx af system: the outer focus points are only horizontal, on the 70-200/4 it's cross-type all over. On the bright side the new 70-300L is tested to work extremely precise anyway since it's both the latest Canon tech working together.


----------



## Rams_eos (Aug 29, 2012)

I have the 70-200 f4 IS and the image quality is just amazing. I tried the 70-300L at a Canon exhibition. It is a bit heavier but it is shorter (easier to pack in a bag). Image quality seems equivalent to the 70-200 and if I would do it again, I would definitively go for the extra reach of the 70-300.


----------



## ivansebastian (Aug 29, 2012)

I used to have 70-200 f/4 IS, but honestly it didn't fit me well. Specially if you taking a lot of candid and portrait, I would say use 70-200 f/2.8 will serve your need much better. Now I use 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and I love this lens (except for the weight, after I carrying it around for a while )


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 29, 2012)

I've got a 70-200 f/4 IS and its an excellent lens. However, since picking up a 135 f/2, I rarely use the 70-200. The 135 is sharp at f/2. While the zoom is good at f/4, it is much better at f/5.6. All things being equal, you can use a much faster shutter speed with the 135, whereas a slower shutter speed on the zoom might lead to some motion blur. The wider aperture of the 135 also allows you to blur backgrounds more if you want (which is a nice look for some portraits). Also, its not a big white lens - you feel a little less conspicuous carrying it. They're both around the same price - I'd at least give it some thought.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Aug 31, 2012)

Thanks for the replies.

I purchased the 70-200 f4 is. $1100 seemed like a good price. It's new and I know I can sell it later if need be for minimal loss. I think it complements my 24-105. Now that I have the telephoto covered. I am going for the 24-70 II year end or early next. Either way thanks for all the advice. I looked and held the 70-200 2.8 and it just is too heavy for the extra stop. Also the cost is soo much. I think this will let me see if I feel limited by the aperature and if so then I will sell it and go for the 70-200. At least then I will know I need it. I looked at the 200 2.8mm and 135l but for me I need zoom since my family makes me have to react fast and it's too hard to change lenses of focus on moving around. I think this will be a good start. If Canon releases the infamous 14-24 or 35l II then maybe that will be my next lens. I also will probably end up with the eos m and use my lenses on that for when I need to travel light. That makes the lens I purchased that much more useful vs the 2.8 counterpart. Anyway thanks everyone.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 31, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Thanks. I just wish I rented it at home. I got it for a trip and only used it for a handful of shots but they were great shots. I just don't want to feel compelled because of the deal but then again if it's going to likely rise a few hundred then I would just buy it now.



Go to Canon price watch and see what the price has been the last 2 years. The last time the lens was at 1100 was fall of 2010. So you aren't buying it while it is the most expensive, and with inflation, you are getting a deal.


----------



## jondave (Aug 31, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> I purchased the 70-200 f4 is. $1100 seemed like a good price. It's new and I know I can sell it later if need be for minimal loss. I think it complements my 24-105. Now that I have the telephoto covered. I am going for the 24-70 II year end or early next. Either way thanks for all the advice. I looked and held the 70-200 2.8 and it just is too heavy for the extra stop. Also the cost is soo much. I think this will let me see if I feel limited by the aperature and if so then I will sell it and go for the 70-200. At least then I will know I need it. I looked at the 200 2.8mm and 135l but for me I need zoom since my family makes me have to react fast and it's too hard to change lenses of focus on moving around. I think this will be a good start. If Canon releases the infamous 14-24 or 35l II then maybe that will be my next lens. I also will probably end up with the eos m and use my lenses on that for when I need to travel light. That makes the lens I purchased that much more useful vs the 2.8 counterpart. Anyway thanks everyone.



Congratulations on the purchase. Nothing can beat primes, but they do have their specific place and for a lot of us the versatility of an L zoom outweighs the IQ advantage of a fast prime.

Good point on the 70-200 2.8 IS II. It's better on all aspects, if you don't mind lugging the extra weight. Thing is, the 70-200mm f4 is so good already (it's even better than the 70-200 2.8 Mk I) that you wouldn't actually know there's a better zoom unless you've actually used the 2.8 II. So no regrets, enjoy and be confident that you've made the right decision.


----------



## drolo61 (Aug 31, 2012)

I fully agree. Stepped up from an 70-300 while using a rented 70-200 for the weekend. The IQ difference is incredible


----------



## tomscott (Aug 31, 2012)

I vote 70-200mm Non IS F2.8 I have one and its wonderful, but you need a steady hand but at 2.8 it is stunning. That or the 70-300mm.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 31, 2012)

drolo61 said:


> Stepped up from an 70-300 while using a rented 70-200 for the weekend. The IQ difference is incredible



... you are talking about the 70-300 non-L, aren't you?


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 31, 2012)

kennephoto said:


> You could always buy it, use it for a while and sell it if you no longer like it or if it doesnt fit your needs. I buy and sell lenses a lot.



+1....I like to keep lenses that I use often, not one a year


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 1, 2012)

Thanks I am really glad I did ended up with it for $1049 out the door so feel real good about my purchase till I know how much I use this range.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 3, 2012)

I have been shooting all weekend with this lens and wish indoors I had the 2.8 but you still have to introduce flash or push you ISo to achieve reasonable shutter speeds. I am wondering if the extra stop is worth $1,000 more and double the weight for indoor shots or should I save that for the upcoming 24-70 ii release which is a much more used focal range for me? I do hate only f4 but 2.8 is not that much faster when under tungsten lighting. Yeah the bokeh seems nicer but I just have a hard time with the weight of that lens. How do you over come it?


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 3, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I have been shooting all weekend with this lens and wish indoors I had the 2.8 but you still have to introduce flash or push you ISo to achieve reasonable shutter speeds. I am wondering if the extra stop is worth $1,000 more and double the weight for indoor shots or should I save that for the upcoming 24-70 ii release which is a much more used focal range for me? I do hate only f4 but 2.8 is not that much faster when under tungsten lighting. Yeah the bokeh seems nicer but I just have a hard time with the weight of that lens. How do you over come it?



I'm gonna guess bicep curls.


----------



## jondave (Sep 3, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I have been shooting all weekend with this lens and wish indoors I had the 2.8 but you still have to introduce flash or push you ISo to achieve reasonable shutter speeds. I am wondering if the extra stop is worth $1,000 more and double the weight for indoor shots or should I save that for the upcoming 24-70 ii release which is a much more used focal range for me? I do hate only f4 but 2.8 is not that much faster when under tungsten lighting. Yeah the bokeh seems nicer but I just have a hard time with the weight of that lens. How do you over come it?



Don't forget ab and back exercises. That thing can seriously hurt your spine if you sling it on your neck the whole day. ;D 

But seriously, only you can decide if what you'll get from the 2.8 is worth an extra grand. Probably yes if you're shooting professionally. Or if you have the money for it, does it really matter if it's worth it? Otherwise there's no need to get it, it's not as if it will make a night and day difference to your photos.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 3, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I have been shooting all weekend with this lens and wish indoors I had the 2.8 but you still have to introduce flash or push you ISo to achieve reasonable shutter speeds. I am wondering if the extra stop is worth $1,000 more and double the weight for indoor shots or should I save that for the upcoming 24-70 ii release which is a much more used focal range for me? I do hate only f4 but 2.8 is not that much faster when under tungsten lighting. Yeah the bokeh seems nicer but I just have a hard time with the weight of that lens. How do you over come it?



I use a BR strap. If you think the weight of the f/2.8 will be too much for you, then you should stay with the f/4.

f/2.8 is only one stop faster. Are you going to be happy with the IQ if you halve the ISO? More likely, you should avoid the f/2.8 zooms if you're trying to take indoor photos without flash. f/2.8 is not fast enough. You need f/1.2 or f/1.4, which has a 3+ advantage compared to the f/4, which becomes significant. The DOF also gets a lot thinner, so that is the trade off. So my suggestion is to keep the 70-200 f/4 and thinking about adding a high speed prime (i.e. 35, 50 or 85) for indoor use for single subjects. For multiple subjects or for deeper DOF, you're going to need a flash regardless.


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 3, 2012)

It's a great lens but I'm trying to sell it or switch to 300 F/4 because of the reach lack.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 3, 2012)

ivansebastian said:


> I used to have 70-200 f/4 IS, but honestly it didn't fit me well. Specially if you taking a lot of candid and portrait, I would say use 70-200 f/2.8 will serve your need much better. Now I use 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and I love this lens (except for the weight, after I carrying it around for a while )



I took the same route. I had the 70-200 f4 before- great lens, but I was pushing it to its limits for indoor events when I needed longer reach, so I saved up and bought the f2.8 version. It opened up many shots for me that just were not possible with the f4 lens- but at the same time, the extra size and weight is a bear. 

It depends on what you shoot though. The OP mentioned tracking kids- I suppose with the FF 5D3 you could push the ISO upwards of 6400 without taking too much of a hit in quality, so the f4 version shouldn't be a problem. There's the (much!) lighter weight and $$ savings to consider. Since I have a 1.6x 60D, I needed the 2.8 since I can't reasonably push ISO higher than 3200 on it.


----------



## DigitalDivide (Sep 3, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> I use a BR strap. If you think the weight of the f/2.8 will be too much for you, then you should stay with the f/4.
> 
> f/2.8 is only one stop faster. Are you going to be happy with the IQ if you halve the ISO? More likely, you should avoid the f/2.8 zooms if you're trying to take indoor photos without flash. f/2.8 is not fast enough. You need f/1.2 or f/1.4, which has a 3+ advantage compared to the f/4, which becomes significant. The DOF also gets a lot thinner, so that is the trade off. So my suggestion is to keep the 70-200 f/4 and thinking about adding a high speed prime (i.e. 35, 50 or 85) for indoor use for single subjects. For multiple subjects or for deeper DOF, you're going to need a flash regardless.



+1 on the strap. I have the BlackRapid RS-4 and my 5D2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L II hangs on there without any of the back or shoulder pain I used to get even with lighter lenses on a neck strap.

I also agree with the aperture comment. If f/4 is not fast enough with the amazing low-light capabilities of the 5D3, one extra stop is probably not going to cut it. I don't have any experience with the fast primes others have mentioned so I can't really add anything there; I don't take many portraits and I have the 50 f/1.4 and 100 f/2 for low light when I need them.


----------



## earwaxxer (Sep 3, 2012)

I have owned the 70-200 f4 form many years though several DSLR bodies. Part of me want to not like it so I can get something else, but its such a great performer for the price and weight. One thing I can say is that my manual focus ring is not working right. There is some slack in its operation which pretty much makes it unusable. Not a biggie because I use auto focus 99.9% of the time. Its a great outdoor sports lens. Pretty sharp even at f4. The new f2.8L is very good though. When I bought the f4, it was a sharper lens then the first generation f2.8.


----------



## robbymack (Sep 3, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I have been shooting all weekend with this lens and wish indoors I had the 2.8 but you still have to introduce flash or push you ISo to achieve reasonable shutter speeds. I am wondering if the extra stop is worth $1,000 more and double the weight for indoor shots or should I save that for the upcoming 24-70 ii release which is a much more used focal range for me? I do hate only f4 but 2.8 is not that much faster when under tungsten lighting. Yeah the bokeh seems nicer but I just have a hard time with the weight of that lens. How do you over come it?



As others have mentioned. 2.8 really isn't fast enough to stop action in low light especially with kids IMO. I have the 70-200 f4 is as well and I wouldn't trade it for the 2.8 is due to weight and no real world image quality differences (I guess if you like to pixel peep there may be some differences). With the 5diii you should be able to push ISO quite a bit and not have to worry about the f4. In fact the main reason I'm considering saving for a 5diii vs picking up a 5dii right now is the extra stop or so in ISO you can push it vs the later. That would mean I probably wouldn't feel the need to possibly replace the f4 zoom with a 2.8. If you have money to burn than by all means take back the f4 and buy the 2.8, but I think you'd be better served by one of the L primes like the 24, 35, 50, 85, or 135. Since your problem is indoors then the 135 and 85 may be a bit long, and the 24 maybe a bit short, so look to the 35 or 50. If you don't want to spend that much the 50 1.4 or 1.8 are good options as is the 28 1.8 and 35 2.0. You'll find obvious build quality trade offs but since you're not making money at this just buy what fits the budget and your needs at the time.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 3, 2012)

Thanks everyone again. I do agree that this will cover my immediate needs for reach beyond 105 mm. It will give me a budget toward a L prime. Or the 24-70 ii if it ends up great. I also like the weight. The Iq is sharp wide open on my copy. I also want the speed lite 600ex to add for low light and I think that will be a better combo than the 2.8 version. I do have the 50mm 1.4. I think I will go for 35mm for my next prime. What is there for beyond 200mm? That's semi affordable?


----------



## earwaxxer (Sep 3, 2012)

Beyond 200, I would recommend the 400 f5.6L. I have had that lens for many years as well. Reasonable price. Nice build. Definitely need a monopod for weight and stability. I use this lens all the time! I love it. The bouka is fantastic. Great looking white lens as well. Built in hood.


----------



## canon816 (Sep 3, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Hey I have a dilemma. I have a 5d3 with the following
> 24-105
> 50 1.4
> Various speedlites
> ...



I have a 70-200 F4 IS. Its an excellent lens. There are advantages to the f2.8, however for budget reasons and the fact that the F4 is half the weight and size it makes it a great walkaround lens.

I wouldn't wait. If canon comes out with something better in the next quarter or 5 years that you would rather have then you can always sell this lens. Canon Glass holds a lot of value!


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 3, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Thanks everyone again. I do agree that this will cover my immediate needs for reach beyond 105 mm. It will give me a budget toward a L prime. Or the 24-70 ii if it ends up great. I also like the weight. The Iq is sharp wide open on my copy. I also want the speed lite 600ex to add for low light and I think that will be a better combo than the 2.8 version. I do have the 50mm 1.4. I think I will go for 35mm for my next prime. What is there for beyond 200mm? That's semi affordable?



That's the range where things get interesting. Canon options include using the 1.4x, 70-300L and 100-400L. You might want to try the 1.4x first and see if that is sufficient. With a 70-200, the 70-300 is not as good a choice because so much of the range overlaps. So, try the extender first, then the 100-400. Beyond that, it gets heavy and expensive.


----------

