# EF 70-200 F4 L IS or 70-200 F2.8 L



## AECM (Aug 1, 2011)

Hello to everyone I'm new in this forum and i live in Portugal. I'm an aviation spotter and i would like to buy a canon L series lenses to my Eos 500d but i need some opinions to make up my mind : I started to take photos of aircrafts note so long ago and i still have much to learn so which one of this lenses would you recommend to me between the EF 70-200 F4 L IS and the EF 70-200 F2.8 L?

Best Regards


----------



## Gothmoth (Aug 1, 2011)

if money doesn't matter the f2.8 IS of course. 

if the choice is 70-200mm f4 IS or 70-200mm f2.8 without IS i would buy the 70-200mm f4 IS for your task. 
the 70-200mm f2.8 is much heavier then the f4 and for spotting i would only accept that weight when i have the IS version. but thats only me... because i would use the lens for other things too, were f2.8 an IS is very usefull. 

but 200mm and plane spotting....would be a bit short for my taste.

the ef 100-400mm would be better for spotting ..imho.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2011)

Fundamentally, it comes down to what you need - do you need f/2.8, or do you need IS? 

For double the price, of course, you can have both. 

If you're shooting fast-moving action, IS doesn't help as much. IS allows you to handhold at shutter speeds that would normally not be possible for a given focal length. The rule of thumb is 1/focal length, adjusted for crop factor, so at 200mm with your 500D, you should get a decent keeper rate at 1/320 s (200mm x 1.6 = 320mm). The 4-stop IS system in the 70-200mm f/4L IS would enable you to get a reasonable keeper rate down to ~1/20 s - but that's too slow to stop even a person moving, much less an airplane. If you need a fast shutter to stop the action you're shooting, IS will not help much, but f/2.8 _will_ help you get the faster shutter speed. 

Is 200mm going to be long enough? For similar â‚¬, you can get a 300mm f/4L IS or a 400mm f/5.6L.


----------



## Fleetie (Aug 1, 2011)

If you mainly want to shoot still subjects, the f/4 L IS, but planes do not fall into that category.

I'm not sure how effective the IS is when panning, especially "upside-down".

I own the f/4 L IS, and I am extremely pleased with it. Read the reviews: It's VERY sharp. OTOH, the f/2.8 L IS is apparently even sharper, but not sure about the non-IS version of it.

The f/2.8 is about twice the mass of the f/4.

FWIW, I intend to get the current f/2.8 L IS, but not until after I've got the 85mm f/1.2 L II.

I guess for you, low light might not be an issue if you're shooting aircraft in daytime.On that basis, and that of portability, you might like the f/4 L IS. I don't regret buying mine at all; it's a joy to use.


Martin


----------



## Gothmoth (Aug 1, 2011)

> If you mainly want to shoot still subjects, the f/4 L IS, but planes do not fall into that category.



well i have (let me count)... 1455 images from airplanes on the ground in my LR catalog.



> I'm not sure how effective the IS is when panning, especially "upside-down".



not much for planes in flight.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Aug 1, 2011)

On the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II the mode 2 IS is specifically for panning. I know that wasn't one of the choices... I'd go for the 2.8 simply to allow faster shutter speeds. I do agree though that 200mm is quite short for planes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> > If you mainly want to shoot still subjects, the f/4 L IS, but planes do not fall into that category.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, yeah - but the OP mentioned being an aviation spotter, which I took to mean photographing them actually flying. Maybe that's incorrect? Spotting them on the ground at an airshow would not be that difficult, and 70mm might even be too long in that case...

The 70-200mm f/4L IS has 'mode 2 IS' which is designed for panning moving subjects - great for fly-bys, but it's for linear motion so not effective for aerobatics.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 1, 2011)

AECM said:


> Hello to everyone I'm new in this forum and i live in Portugal. I'm an aviation spotter and i would like to buy a canon L series lenses to my Eos 500d but i need some opinions to make up my mind : I started to take photos of aircrafts note so long ago and i still have much to learn so which one of this lenses would you recommend to me between the EF 70-200 F4 L IS and the EF 70-200 F2.8 L?
> 
> Best Regards



A favorite for airshow use is the 100-400mm L. 

IMHO, 200mm is pretty short for aircraft in flight. I prefer the 70-200mm f/4L in good light. the older 70-200mm L's are good, but I avoided 200mm at f/2.8 which was their weak spot. The f/2.8 MK II is supurb.

If you have found 200mm to be enough for your photos, and cannot get the 70-200mm f/2.8 MK II, get the non IS fersion or the f/4 IS version for sharper images, but only by a small amount.


----------



## AECM (Aug 1, 2011)

Thanks for all the answers.
At this moment i have a EFS 55-250 IS and the zoom range works fine for aircraft taxing and on take off roll, this is in my nearby airport OPO. The big disadvantage for me of the EF 70-200 f2.8 is the weight, a couple of hours with that on my arms  and at the moment i have a 500d so a big lenses with a small body don't know.... The IS in the lenses is useful for me to trie some new shots and because i use my camera 70% for plane-spotting and the other 30% for travel or general photos.
I'm also a big fan of the EF 100-400 L IS but its an old lenses that someday would have a replacement? I also been searching stuff about the EF 70-300 L IS and it seems to be good material, at this moment my budget its around â‚¬1100 so i'm seriously thinking about buying the EF 70-200 F4 L IS and later with more â‚¬ available and a new body i would like to have a lenses like the EF 100-400 L IS and the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II

Best regards


----------



## 7enderbender (Aug 1, 2011)

Just to throw it out there and I'm not sure if 200 is the right range for your application: if money is an object you can get the 200 2.8LII for a lot less then the fast zoom and have (at least) the same image quality and aperture. No IS and I'm not sure how useful it is in your case.

I have that lens and love it. But it's for different use. Other than that I would second the 100-400 for what you are doing. Who cares if it's an "old" lens? There are lens designs or even actual lenses that are 30 or 50 years old and still hold their ground.


----------



## papa-razzi (Aug 1, 2011)

I have rented the 100-400 L lens twice. I have used it for track meets, baseball games, and once for a High School graduation in a poorly lit arena.

Outside in good light, super sharp and focuses well. It kept up with kids running using a 7D. At the graduation, the range was correct, but I was trying to take shots of people walking and couldn't get the shutter speed up high enough with the poor light. I got a few keepers but it was the wrong lens for that event.

I wouldn't worry about Canon updating the 100-400L any time soon - my guess would be at least a couple of years before something would be done. They just released the 70-300L, which I hear is a very nice lens, very good IS, canon rumors did a review of it - perhaps that is a solution you could look at in addition to the two 70-200 lenses.


----------



## recon photography (Aug 2, 2011)

i would go for the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 non is its a massive saving


----------



## afira (Aug 2, 2011)

If you are sticking to straight Canon lenses, I would stick to the f/4, save yourself the money on the IS and the f/2.8 if you prefer to stick to ground shots. Even on the f/4, you will still get crisp and clean shots for day aerial work. Most aerial/plane photographers are doing day shots with good light and a fair amount of warning time to worry about lighting/position when at an airport. At under $649 US, it is a bargain too.

I spent the extra on a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II because I knew that I would be looking at a FF + extender in the next two years, my shots would be focused on fast action and some early morning/night action shots without a tripod. I haven't regretted it, the lens is as sharp as a razor and it performs at every level. The weight was a significant deterrent for me, but aside from a sore neck, I don't find the weight on my APS-C 450D to be unreasonable for the quality I get.

I agree with the others though, the range isn't good enough, even on an APS-C for solid and very compact looking aerial work. I would look at the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS, if you are not planning on upgrading the body at any point in the next three years to a FF or getting an extender. The crop would equate to a 480mm on an APS-C 500D. It has good range, has a newer design, the 67mm filters are cheaper, it is a solid performer and it is lighter and much smaller (good for travel!) than its 100-400mm companion. The drawbacks are good to look at though if you are planning on upgrades. I will probably pick it up as a general and much lighter alternative for non-technical shots and daily walk around to my 70-200.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Aug 2, 2011)

AECM said:


> this is in my nearby airport OPO.



Oporto, Franciso Cameiro... 
Are any of these yours?
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?cx=partner-pub-8297169501225184%3Aa05n2n-tzky&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=opo&sa=Submit&search_active=1&search=&sheadline=&search_field=datedesc&submit=&siteurl=www.airliners.net%2F


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 2, 2011)

Whilst everyone jumps in with the biggest most costly options, a lower cost option is the 70-300mm non L, which although isn't great in low light, works fine for me in terms of getting the occasional long shots - it has IS which helps, but for less than the price of the 70-200mm f4 and half the 70-200mm f4 IS, it's a good bargain and the picture quality is pretty good... Plus you get the extra reach to 300mm, I've paired mine up with a 15-85mm which is on my camera most of the time.


----------



## AECM (Aug 2, 2011)

wellfedCanuck said:


> AECM said:
> 
> 
> > this is in my nearby airport OPO.
> ...



This are mine

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Andr%C3%A9%20Marques&distinct_entry=true


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 2, 2011)

Canon Rumors did a review of the 70-300 f/4.5 to f/5.6 L IS, and was one of the factors which caused me to buy one. I still have the 70-200 f/4 IS - have not had chance to do an A:B comparison yet. Couple of points

a) For a bizarre reason, Canon chose to swap around the focus ring and the zoom ring, so you sometimes chose the wrong one. It's not a biggie, but worth knowing
b) The 70-300 f/4.5 to f/5.6 L IS will not work with Canon extenders - designed to prevent this. Does work with the Kenko Pro G teleconverter (again have not had chance to try comparison of with/without).
c) I've not tried this for fast moving action, but you could hire / try either of the 70-200 lenses with a 1.4x to get additional reach at the expense of some sharpness / some focus speed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2011)

Stu_bert said:


> a) For a bizarre reason, Canon chose to swap around the focus ring and the zoom ring, so you sometimes chose the wrong one. It's not a biggie, but worth knowing



Indeed. The reason _might_ be a design necessity (for example, the lens has a floating focus element), but may also have been by choice. From their market position paper on the lens, Canon is aiming it primarily at APS-C users, and even though the zoom and focus ring placement is reversed from other L-series lenses, it is the same as the high-end EF-S lenses (17-55mm, 15-85mm, 10-22mm).


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 2, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > a) For a bizarre reason, Canon chose to swap around the focus ring and the zoom ring, so you sometimes chose the wrong one. It's not a biggie, but worth knowing
> ...



Cool - never realised that for EF-S lenses Neuroanatomist - definitely a mild confusion with the other lenses I use.


----------



## Gothmoth (Aug 2, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> Whilst everyone jumps in with the biggest most costly options, a lower cost option is the 70-300mm non L, which although isn't great in low light, works fine for me in terms of getting the occasional long shots - it has IS which helps, but for less than the price of the 70-200mm f4 and half the 70-200mm f4 IS



but itÂ´s not parfocal (same as the 70-300mm L).
thats not so good for spotting. 

thought the 100-400 is not parfocal too.
at least not all copys... i had a few who are parfocal but more are not.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 2, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> but itÂ´s not parfocal (same as the 70-300mm L).
> thats not so good for spotting.



Course it is ;-) it's called autofocus !

Seriously though, I'm not familiar with lenses that are parfocal, so what I haven't had I never miss... Whilst it's easy to dismiss a lens because of a single feature, many of us don't have the disposable income to invest in lenses that cost as much as the 70-200mm f2.8 IS, let alone the longer fixed primes, regardless of how much we would like to. It's easy to take a X is best approach, but the reality is that practically all purchasing decisions in life are a financial compromise. Personally, I don't use my 70-300mm that much, so don't feel a strong urge to get a better lens in that range, I'm more of a wide and/or low light photographer, so I'm starting to expand my collection with that in mind, the 70-300mm was bought at the time I got my 450D about three years ago, the 15-85mm last autumn, the 50mm f1.4 a few weeks back, I'm now pondering wide low f, the 16-35mm would be nice, but I suspect the 28mm f1.8 might be all I can justify, maybe a 17-55mm at a stretch... Watch this space, but gawd do I want Canon to do some wide fast EF-S primes !


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 2, 2011)

Stu_bert said:


> a) For a bizarre reason, Canon chose to swap around the focus ring and the zoom ring, so you sometimes chose the wrong one. It's not a biggie, but worth knowing




Canon has released patents now for a rear focus design with multiplee elements moving in a complex pattern. apparently they discovered this as a way to improve the IQ, and we will see more of this.

Some lenses are front focus and some rear, its been that way for many years.


----------



## WarStreet (Aug 2, 2011)

AECM said:


> Thanks for all the answers.
> At this moment i have a EFS 55-250 IS and the zoom range works fine for aircraft taxing and on take off roll, this is in my nearby airport OPO. The big disadvantage for me of the EF 70-200 f2.8 is the weight, a couple of hours with that on my arms  and at the moment i have a 500d so a big lenses with a small body don't know.... The IS in the lenses is useful for me to trie some new shots and because i use my camera 70% for plane-spotting and the other 30% for travel or general photos.
> I'm also a big fan of the EF 100-400 L IS but its an old lenses that someday would have a replacement? I also been searching stuff about the EF 70-300 L IS and it seems to be good material, at this moment my budget its around â‚¬1100 so i'm seriously thinking about buying the EF 70-200 F4 L IS and later with more â‚¬ available and a new body i would like to have a lenses like the EF 100-400 L IS and the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II
> 
> Best regards



In our single airport in the country, there is a particular spot for plane-spotters, and I do go there sometimes just to watch them, and the planes while eating something. Most of them use any type of lenses, and even smaller cameras. 70-200, 100-400 and 70-300, 55-250 are the most common, and pretty much every lens seems to deliver for them. They told me that usually their objective is to collect the different planes including different serial no's, and that sometimes they only shoot the serial numbers or stickers. 

I have seen your photos and it seems that you are doing well with your setup. Do you have a particular shortcoming with the 55-250 for your needs ? I am asking as this can help you further, to decide what's best way forward.


----------



## AECM (Aug 2, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> In our single airport in the country, there is a particular spot for plane-spotters, and I do go there sometimes just to watch them, and the planes while eating something. Most of them use any type of lenses, and even smaller cameras. 70-200, 100-400 and 70-300, 55-250 are the most common, and pretty much every lens seems to deliver for them. They told me that usually their objective is to collect the different planes including different serial no's, and that sometimes they only shoot the serial numbers or stickers.
> 
> I have seen your photos and it seems that you are doing well with your setup. Do you have a particular shortcoming with the 55-250 for your needs ? I am asking as this can help you further, to decide what's best way forward.



Hi,
Well I'm a plane spotter that likes to do good photos off an aircraft, i don't simple collect registrations i prefer to have good photos with quality. About my actual lenses I'm very happy with it but now i would like more image quality, more sharpness and better colors, i also could use about 20% of times more focal length to get different shots... I think that buying an L lenses, and with proper care, its a lenses for a lifetime and i can get better shots.


----------



## Gothmoth (Aug 2, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> They told me that usually their objective is to collect the different planes including different serial no's, and that sometimes they only shoot the serial numbers or stickers.



humans are strange arenÂ´t they? ;D


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 2, 2011)

I like to go out by a back gate of a regional airport and take photos now and then (I haven't had a chance to do it with the 120-300mm f/2.8 and 2X III extender setup yet), in addition to chasing around aircraft that overfly the yard. A good picture is my goal.

I actually had to think a bit about which is better - zoom ring or focus ring in front - and with a heavy lens like the 120-300mm f/2.8 you really want both to be in front. Probably, with a better AF system and/or uncluttered scenes (i.e. not shooting into tangles of branches) you probably want the zoom ring in front because you can recompose the scene and let AF do the rest. Trying to track a subject and recompose while balancing the lens halfway back and zooming seems like it would be too straining. Grabbing the focus ring isn't easy, either, and you still have to balance it, but at least it can be done. For me, using that particular lens, the problem is that my usual AF mode means that the camera keeps trying to track despite my grabbing the focus ring, so I usually have to flip the AF/M switch regardless of what I do. Putting the focus ring out front wouldn't make that more convenient.


----------



## WarStreet (Aug 2, 2011)

AECM said:


> Hi,
> Well I'm a plane spotter that likes to do good photos off an aircraft, i don't simple collect registrations i prefer to have good photos with quality. About my actual lenses I'm very happy with it but now i would like more image quality, more sharpness and better colors, i also could use about 20% of times more focal length to get different shots... I think that buying an L lenses, and with proper care, its a lenses for a lifetime and i can get better shots.



If more sharpness is what you want, then the lenses you are considering are all good. The 70-200 4.0 IS is considered the second sharpest from the five 70-200's. You are right, buying an L lens is valuable. I prefer to buy Canon lenses due to the good investment. You certainly not throwing money by buying any of these lenses.


----------



## afira (Aug 3, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> Seriously though, I'm not familiar with lenses that are parfocal, so what I haven't had I never miss... Whilst it's easy to dismiss a lens because of a single feature, many of us don't have the disposable income to invest in lenses that cost as much as the 70-200mm f2.8 IS, let alone the longer fixed primes, regardless of how much we would like to. It's easy to take a X is best approach, but the reality is that practically all purchasing decisions in life are a financial compromise. Personally, I don't use my 70-300mm that much, so don't feel a strong urge to get a better lens in that range, I'm more of a wide and/or low light photographer, so I'm starting to expand my collection with that in mind, the 70-300mm was bought at the time I got my 450D about three years ago, the 15-85mm last autumn, the 50mm f1.4 a few weeks back, I'm now pondering wide low f, the 16-35mm would be nice, but I suspect the 28mm f1.8 might be all I can justify, maybe a 17-55mm at a stretch... Watch this space, but gawd do I want Canon to do some wide fast EF-S primes !



Not considering the 10-22mm EF-S f/3.5-4.5 at half the price of the more expensive 16-35mm L EF f/2.8? Unless you only have a FF, or shoot exclusively wide and low light at the same time of course... I prefer the 10-22 for sharper corners and a decent dof - not as good as I would like, but good enough for the price.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Aug 3, 2011)

AECM said:


> wellfedCanuck said:
> 
> 
> > AECM said:
> ...


Nice. Although I take a lot of airplane photos, I'm sometimes in them as well.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 3, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> Whilst everyone jumps in with the biggest most costly options, a lower cost option is the 70-300mm non L, which although isn't great in low light, works fine for me in terms of getting the occasional long shots - it has IS which helps, but for less than the price of the 70-200mm f4 and half the 70-200mm f4 IS, it's a good bargain and the picture quality is pretty good... Plus you get the extra reach to 300mm, I've paired mine up with a 15-85mm which is on my camera most of the time.


Wait, are you talking about the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? 

I've been sorely disappointed time after time by this lens; grainy and low-res compared to pretty much every other lens in my collection  

We went up to Alex Bay last weekend and I have to say that the 70-300 shots were so grainy even on a 13" notebook that recomposing the shot and using the 24-105L seemed much more professional . . .

I'm definitely in the market for a higher quality telephoto.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 3, 2011)

afira said:


> Not considering the 10-22mm EF-S f/3.5-4.5 at half the price of the more expensive 16-35mm L EF f/2.8? Unless you only have a FF, or shoot exclusively wide and low light at the same time of course... I prefer the 10-22 for sharper corners and a decent dof - not as good as I would like, but good enough for the price.



I find it rare to need more than 15mm of my 15-85mm, but much more frequently need low light functionality, wider than 50mm on my crop - the f in this case is more important than the mm - incidentally, I was looking at prices for the 17-55mm last night and numerous places had limited or no availability - is this normal or a sign of replacement ?


----------



## recon photography (Aug 3, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> afira said:
> 
> 
> > Not considering the 10-22mm EF-S f/3.5-4.5 at half the price of the more expensive 16-35mm L EF f/2.8? Unless you only have a FF, or shoot exclusively wide and low light at the same time of course... I prefer the 10-22 for sharper corners and a decent dof - not as good as I would like, but good enough for the price.
> ...



possibly, just pick up a non vc tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for 300 odd 

it should be


----------



## AECM (Aug 3, 2011)

> Nice. Although I take a lot of airplane photos, I'm sometimes in them as well.



Nice!  I see you are an Airbus pilot, A320 family?


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Aug 3, 2011)

AECM said:


> > Nice. Although I take a lot of airplane photos, I'm sometimes in them as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice!  I see you are an Airbus pilot, A320 family?


Yes, captain A319/320/321 for the past 10 years, AC, based CYYZ. The snapshot was takent with a crappy little pocket-camera but that's the Grand Canyon in the background. (That part of the world fascinates me- Shiprock, Monument Valley, et al.)


----------



## AECM (Aug 3, 2011)

> Yes, captain A319/320/321 for the past 10 years, AC, based CYYZ. The snapshot was takent with a crappy little pocket-camera but that's the Grand Canyon in the background. (That part of the world fascinates me- Shiprock, Monument Valley, et al.)



You sure work in the best office in the world


----------



## AECM (Aug 3, 2011)

> but itÂ´s not parfocal (same as the 70-300mm L).
> thats not so good for spotting.



What does parfocal means?



> thought the 100-400 is not parfocal too.
> at least not all copys... i had a few who are parfocal but more are not.



So there are different EF 100-400L? They weren't supposed to be all exactly the same?


----------



## afira (Aug 4, 2011)

AECM said:


> What does parfocal means?
> 
> So there are different EF 100-400L? They weren't supposed to be all exactly the same?



Parfocal - objects in focus at one magnification, aka 100mm, will be in focus or mostly in focus at a higher magnification, aka 200mm. This is beneficial for people that work with very mobile objects and need to be able to handle zooming in and out and maintaining focus without much shifting between shots. The larger the range of the focal length - typically the harder it is to control focus from one end to the next. This isn't always the case though.

Some lenses have better QC, IQ and generally are just better. It happens as a fault of working with glass and multiple layers of it along with all the imperfections and differences. E.g. the Hubble telescope - a massive piece of glass/mirror that was out by 2.2 microns. Manufacturing for all lens makers is never 100% perfect every time. As far as I am aware, the 100-400mm didn't have multiple releases - but given that the lens was developed in 1998, I sure minor differences would be present between the years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2011)

The 100-400mm is not a parfocal design, so really none of them should be parfocal. But, it's a slow lens, and what often happens is that the deep DoF resulting from the narrow aperture masks focus errors, so depending on subject distance you might not notice the change in focal plane as you zoom.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 11, 2011)

dstppy said:


> We went up to Alex Bay last weekend and I have to say that the 70-300 shots were so grainy even on a 13" notebook that recomposing the shot and using the 24-105L seemed much more professional . . .


"Grainy" shots are generally not the lens' doing, but the camera's when you try to push the ISO past what it should be.

If you mean fuzzy, the cause could be the same.

Higher sensitivity, tripods, IS lenses or - best of all - a faster lens - are all potential solutions.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 20, 2011)

I would like to add that I own the EF 70-300 IS lens you say gives you grainy pictures and I will second Edwin's thoughts. I have a ton of beautiful pictures from that lens on a 30D and 40D camera, not to mention a 5D. It's not the fault of the lens unless you have some kind of way off wacky copy. Far as I am concerned, the EF 70-300 IS lens is a hell of a value for what it can produce.


----------



## AECM (Aug 29, 2011)

Hello again! Today i had the opportunity of taking some photos with a EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM and its an excellent lenses i love the image quality, the colors... I also felt on my arms the weight of the lenses, and to balance it was a bit hard because i couldn't stand still, i think that with a bigger body it could had been easier to balance. Know i would like to try the EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, i think that the image quality, sharpness and colors would be similar ore even better than the EF 70 200 f2.8 L USM??


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2011)

AECM said:


> Hello again! Today i had the opportunity of taking some photos with a EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM and its an excellent lenses i love the image quality, the colors... I also felt on my arms the weight of the lenses, and to balance it was a bit hard because i couldn't stand still, i think that with a bigger body it could had been easier to balance. Know i would like to try the EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, i think that the image quality, sharpness and colors would be similar ore even better than the EF 70 200 f2.8 L USM??



I find that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II balances quite well on my gripped bodies - but the combo is definitely not light. 

In terms of IQ, assuming you mean the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS, the 70-200mm f/4L IS has a *very* slight edge, so slight it's unlikely to make any difference in real-world use. So, the trade off is IS and lighter/smaller vs. a stop of light. If you need the extra stop, you need it. If not, the f/4 IS version is great.


----------



## AECM (Sep 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> AECM said:
> 
> 
> > Hello again! Today i had the opportunity of taking some photos with a EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM and its an excellent lenses i love the image quality, the colors... I also felt on my arms the weight of the lenses, and to balance it was a bit hard because i couldn't stand still, i think that with a bigger body it could had been easier to balance. Know i would like to try the EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, i think that the image quality, sharpness and colors would be similar ore even better than the EF 70 200 f2.8 L USM??
> ...



Yes i was referring to the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS. If tomorrow i was buying a Canon 70-200 L series lenses i would buy the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM because at this time i don't really need the f/2.8 and from what i was reading the 70 200 f/4 IS is a very good material. 
But now i have other doubts i was reading the review of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM By Craig B / Canon Rumors Guy and he say that in his opinion the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM is as sharp as the 70 200 f/4 L IS USM so my question his can the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be a sort of 70 200 f/4 L IS with an f/4 from 70 to 200 mm and also have an extra 100mm with f/5.6? Can the general image quality of the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be close to that of the 70 200 f/4 L IS?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2011)

AECM said:


> i was reading the review of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM By Craig B / Canon Rumors Guy and he say that in his opinion the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM is as sharp as the 70 200 f/4 L IS USM so my question his can the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be a sort of 70 200 f/4 L IS with an f/4 from 70 to 200 mm and also have an extra 100mm with f/5.6? Can the general image quality of the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be close to that of the 70 200 f/4 L IS?



Not quite. The IQ of the two lenses is essentially equivalent, both excellent and just tiny bit less than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. However, the 70-300 L is only f/4 until just over 100mm. Here's the breakdown:

70-103mm = f/4.0
104-154mm = f/4.5
155-228mm = f/5.0
229-300mm = f/5.6	

So, basically you're trading 100mm for 1/3 - 2/3 stop of light over most of the overlapping focal range. The 70-200 f/4L IS can also take a 1.4x TC (with an IQ hit, or a 2x with a bigger hit and loss of AF on non-1-series bodies). A variable aperture is a bit of a pain if you shoot in M mode, since you need to adjust exposure as you zoom
(in Av or Tv the camera compensates). The 70-300 L is also a bit more expensive. Having said that, of the two, I'd probably choose the 70-300 L for the extra 100mm.


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 1, 2011)

I have been having that problem with my 50D and a couple of L lenses. I sent the camera and lenses in to get looked at, so hopefully that may remedy the problem. If your lens is under warranty, you may want to consider that too. Of course, I am waiting to see if the problem is resolved. Just an idea. 

sek



dstppy said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst everyone jumps in with the biggest most costly options, a lower cost option is the 70-300mm non L, which although isn't great in low light, works fine for me in terms of getting the occasional long shots - it has IS which helps, but for less than the price of the 70-200mm f4 and half the 70-200mm f4 IS, it's a good bargain and the picture quality is pretty good... Plus you get the extra reach to 300mm, I've paired mine up with a 15-85mm which is on my camera most of the time.
> ...


----------



## AECM (Sep 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> AECM said:
> 
> 
> > i was reading the review of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM By Craig B / Canon Rumors Guy and he say that in his opinion the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM is as sharp as the 70 200 f/4 L IS USM so my question his can the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be a sort of 70 200 f/4 L IS with an f/4 from 70 to 200 mm and also have an extra 100mm with f/5.6? Can the general image quality of the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be close to that of the 70 200 f/4 L IS?
> ...



In terms of general image quality how would you rank this 3 lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8 L USM (non IS version); EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM; EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2011)

Honestly, I wouldn't rank order them. For all practical purposes, the overall IQ is equal among the three. One may be very slightly better at 70mm, another very slightly better at 200mm, yet another improves slightly more when you stop down a bit, etc., but overall, it's a wash - they're all excellent. 

So, other factors need to drive the decision. Do you need f/2.8? Do you need an extra 100mm? Is 2/3 stop important? Do you need IS? Do you have the extra $300. How about size/weight? Do you need weather sealing (the 2.8 non-IS isn't sealed)? Those are the questions you need to answer, since IQ doesn't differentiate those 3 lenses.


----------



## AECM (Sep 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't rank order them. For all practical purposes, the overall IQ is equal among the three. One may be very slightly better at 70mm, another very slightly better at 200mm, yet another improves slightly more when you stop down a bit, etc., but overall, it's a wash - they're all excellent.
> 
> So, other factors need to drive the decision. Do you need f/2.8? Do you need an extra 100mm? Is 2/3 stop important? Do you need IS? Do you have the extra $300. How about size/weight? Do you need weather sealing (the 2.8 non-IS isn't sealed)? Those are the questions you need to answer, since IQ doesn't differentiate those 3 lenses.



I don't need f/2.8 but the IS and the weather sealing can be a big advantage and makes the lenses more practical, so IS and weather sealing in. 
I was aiming for the EF 70 200 f/4 L IS USM but know that i started to reed more about the EF 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM i have doubts about what to chose, if i had the extra 100mm i would use them for sure and if the image quality is identical in this to lenses even more points goes to the EF 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM. In terms of price the difference is about â‚¬250 so that wouldn't be a big issue and the EF 70 3 f/4-5.6 L IS USM tends to be more practical due to its length when full retracted and the difference in weight is about 290g for the extra 100mm so that's not a big problem either.


----------

