# I need help choosing a 70-200.



## Daan Stam (Jul 4, 2016)

Hello everyone!
I want a new lens. A 70-200 but i cant decide on a specific one.
I want to choose between:
The canon 70-200 f2.8 is usm mkI I can't afford a mkII
The canon 70-200 f4 is usm.(is there a new one coming?)
The tamron 70-200 f2.8 is usm.(whatever thats called in the tamron world)i know this is a canon forum
The sigma 70-200 f2.8 is usm.

I like shooting wildlife and some stuff in the evening.(i might buy a teleconverter)

i don't have a big budget and i am concerned on the sharpness and the autofocus on the canon f2.8 mkI
and the weight on all the f2.8 lenses.
Is there someone who can help me with this decision?? or someone who has had the same considerations?


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 4, 2016)

Go with a 2.8 version for wildlife and teleconverters. The f/4 IS doesn't take teleconverters. If you're doing birds you could save a few hundred bucks on the non is version, because you'll need the shutter speed anyways.

If all you're thinking of is wildlife, look hard at the 400mm 5.6 or the 300mm 4.0 IS


----------



## greger (Jul 4, 2016)

I have the 70-200 f4 IS USM and bought the 1.4 extender ll at the same time. This combo worked well for me until I bought the 100-400 mark l for the extra reach. The 2x extender was a disappointment and not recommended.If you don't plan on shooting in situations where you need f2.8 the f4 will be an excellent choice. The 1.4 IS USM is sharper than the original 2.8 lens. The 2.8 ll is the sharpest of the 70-200's. The f4 IS USM was light enough to carry around for afternoon picture excursions where the 100-400 feels heavy after awhile. Rent these lenses one at a time and go out for afternoons of picture taking to help in your decision.


----------



## Harv (Jul 4, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> Go with a 2.8 version for wildlife and teleconverters. The f/4 IS doesn't take teleconverters. If you're doing birds you could save a few hundred bucks on the non is version, because you'll need the shutter speed anyways.



That's incorrect. Both of the f/4 versions take 1.4x converters with no problem.


----------



## canon1dxman (Jul 4, 2016)

Alternatively, buy the 70-300L. Stunning IQ, lightweight and realistically priced. Sure, downsize is that Canon convertors don't really fit but if you are thinking 70-200 plus 1.4....this will do what you want.


----------



## SteveM (Jul 4, 2016)

If you are intent on wildlife, a 70-200 is probably not the best choice lens, unless your interest lies in the ‘animal in its environment.’ As I’m not sure what other uses you will have for this lens you might consider the Canon 70-300 ‘L’ which has a better reach, is fairly general purpose and is very highly regarded. Yes, it is f5.6
Personally, for wildlife, I use a 300mm + 1.4 converter (not a lot of use for anything else though).
Check out the second hand market or wait for the Canon cashbacks as I do….the 1.4 converter isn’t cheap either.


----------



## j-nord (Jul 4, 2016)

I agree with others, you are better off with a 300 f4 IS (about 700 used on eBay), 400 f5.6 (7-800 used on eBay), 70-300L (about 900 used on ebay last I checked. if you are set on a 1.4x you can get the kenko, canon doesnt fit). The f4 of the 300 f4 IS can be a big help in low light situations.


----------



## nc0b (Jul 5, 2016)

Indoors I use my 70-200mm f/2.8 II. Otherwise the f/4 IS is fine with or without the 1.4X TC III. Since I now have the 400 f/5.6 for BIF, and the 100-400 II for wildlife, I rarely use the TC except with the 100-400 II and 5DsR. My mint 300mm f/4 IS is now stored in the original box. It works with the TC. For wildlife it seems you never have too much reach. For BIF I always grab the 400 prime with the focus limiter set to 8.5 meters. Wish the 100-400 II had a second focus limit choice of 10 meters.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 5, 2016)

For low light evening photos you mentioned, a f/4 is woefully inadequate, fast shutter speeds and smaller apertures mean super high ISO settings and a lot of noise. A FF body helps, but it can't overcome that combination. When you add a TC, its worse yet. While a 300mm f/4 is a great lens, its not f/2.8. Its equal to a 70-200 + 1.4X TC, but you can't get it to f/2.8 and 200mm.

In my opinion, for moving wildlife, F/2.8 is marginal in low light, but it will do the job.

The original 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS is excellent, and if you can find one for $500 or less, its a deal. (I've found near mint ones for $300)


----------



## gregorywood (Jul 5, 2016)

I have had both versions of the f/4 (IS and non-IS) as well as the f/2.8 mk II. I currently have both the f/4 non-IS and the f/2.8 mk II and they both have their use cases. I've also had both versions of the 70-300 (L and non-L) and I didn't like the variable aperture of the L and the lack of IQ in the non-L.

In my humble opinion, the f/4 non-IS version works great in most any situation. It is plenty sharp on both 6D and 7D and what is great is that it works well with the 1.4x teleconverter AND it's light. I love my f/2.8 mk II when it comes time to shoot action in lower light situations (evening sports and anything indoors).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 5, 2016)

gregorywood said:


> I have had both versions of the f/4 (IS and non-IS) as well as the f/2.8 mk II. I currently have both the f/4 non-IS and the f/2.8 mk II and they both have their use cases. I've also had both versions of the 70-300 (L and non-L) and I didn't like the variable aperture of the L and the lack of IQ in the non-L.
> 
> In my humble opinion, the f/4 non-IS version works great in most any situation. It is plenty sharp on both 6D and 7D and what is great is that it works well with the 1.4x teleconverter AND it's light. I love my f/2.8 mk II when it comes time to shoot action in lower light situations (evening sports and anything indoors).



Yes, I've owned all three versions of the f/2.8 and the f/4 IS. The F/4 is a wonderful lens for use with adequate light. It works well with a 1.4X TC, and I've used 2X TC's with it too, just not in low light.

70-200mm f/4 IS + 2X TC


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 5, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> gregorywood said:
> 
> 
> > I have had both versions of the f/4 (IS and non-IS) as well as the f/2.8 mk II. I currently have both the f/4 non-IS and the f/2.8 mk II and they both have their use cases. I've also had both versions of the 70-300 (L and non-L) and I didn't like the variable aperture of the L and the lack of IQ in the non-L.
> ...



That is sure a nice photo of the little guy!


----------



## Tyroop (Jul 5, 2016)

Lots of good advice already, but here's my 2 cents.

For me, personally (different for other people), the f/2.8 lenses are far too big, heavy and bulky despite the superb performance and image quality of the latest version. I only have Canon lenses, so can't comment on other manufacturers' lenses. Canon lenses hold their prices better and with camera systems being so dependent on firmware these days it reassures me to know that my Canon lenses will continue to work with new Canon bodies. 

I owned the f/4L non-IS version and it was a fantastic lens. Great contrast, colours, sharpness and AF. It was one of those lenses I imagined I would keep for life and never sell.

I then sold it and bought the IS version. This lens blew me away. Presumably Canon had improved the lens coatings because the contrast and colours were even better, with the sharpness remaining just as good. But the main benefit is the fantastic IS system.

On a crop body camera the effective max focal length is 320mm and when you are handholding, camera shake is a noticeable problem. My first experience of the latest IS used in the 70-200 f/4L IS was unbelievable. It was as if a giant pair of hands had appeared from nowhere to steady the camera.

Up until then my only experience of IS had been with the 300mm f/4L IS. This has the early one-stop IS and it helped but it wasn't THAT effective. I also had terrible image quality problems with this lens, maybe because it was a bad copy, and ended up getting rid of it. Every new Canon lens these days seems to have great IQ, but that isn't the case with every older lens and I would stay away from lenses that are now long in the tooth, which is why I wouldn't buy an older f/2.8 version.

Both 70-200 f/4Ls (IS and non-IS) worked exceptionally well with the 1.4x II converter. You lose a stop with the converter, but there is virtually no reduction in IQ.

I would go for the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS and a 1.4x II or 1.4x III.

I have some sample images (with and without the 1.4x converter), but this page needs updating and the sample images aren't particularly big. When time permits I will do some more work and enlarge the image sizes, but this should give you an idea.

http://phil.uk.net/photography/canon_70-200F4LIS.html

I am a big fan of this lens. Will it be upgraded? Probably, at some stage, but the current version already has amazing IQ and IS, and a new version will be more expensive.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 5, 2016)

I'm a little surprised nobody has suggested the original 100-400 for his needs as a wildlife lens.

I've owned the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L version 1 and currently the version 2. I also owned the Sigma 70-200 EX DG APO OS HSM between owning the two Canon versions. I can say without a down that the Sigma was a major upgrade over the original Canon. From what I've gathered from the internet and friends using the Tamron, it's along the lines of the Canon Version 2 in optical quality but probably the worst in build. In other words, you really can't go wrong with trying to own any of these, but if you're allowing your budget to influence your decision, you need should probably look at the Sigma/Tamron options over the Canon V1. You'll get more for your money in my opinion and experience.

For wildlife, 200mm is seldom enough reach unless we're talking a zoo. The Canon 100-400 may not be the sexiest lens on the planet, but it falls into your budget and will deliver on its purpose of effective optical reach while maintaining reasonable to high level image quality and image stabilization - which you'll likely have turned off for birding anyway. Adding a 1.4 extender behind any of the 70-200s on a crop sensor will deliver slower AF and diminish image quality to a noticeable level...so my 1.4 simply sits at home after I got the new 100-400.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 5, 2016)

When you say "some stuff in the evening" my guess is that the weight of the 70-200 f2.8 will be hard to justify for the few times it seems you would use it. When I got my f4LIS I also thought about the f2.8 non-IS but reasoned that the IS would be more useful than the additional stop aperture. If you do shoot low light then you may prefer the IS version.

The 70-200 F4LIS is a beautiful lens to use and, despite also having the Canon 17-55 IS my 70-200 gets more use even for portraits and landscapes. 
I know, and have spoken to, several pros who have the 70-200 f2.8 for pro use and have the 70-200 f4L for personal photography because the f2.8 is so big. But so much depends on the type of photography you do.

But I would also ask how much wildlife do you shoot? If a fair bit then the 100-400 will be worthwhile despite the size. The MkI is not as good as the MKII but that does not make it a bad lens.
The 70-300L is a bit chunker than the 70-200 f4, but when you add there 1.4tc to the 70-200 there is nothing in it. The image quality of the 70-300 is pretty much equal to the 70-200 even when it moves out to 300mm (note that the 70-300 is about f5 at 200 mm so you are losing about 2/3 stop over the f4 zoom which is not a huge difference). The 300 zoom may be a good compromise for wildlife and if you think about it will the 30% difference in image size compared to the 100-400 really make a difference for the shots you see yourself taking?

FWIW, I have no hesitation buying second hand lenses from reputable dealers - their condition is often better than the advert makes out and they often come with a 6- or 12-month warranty. You never know you may be able to afford the 70-200 f4LIS *and *the 100-400 !! ;D


----------



## SteveM (Jul 6, 2016)

I live near 2 Deer parks, and it was the subject I photograph the most that determined the lens I bought. But first I spent a couple of years with a ‘very' inexpensive kit lens. This gave me time to (1) see just how interested I really was in wildlife photography….on site at sunrise (2) better my ‘field-craft’ techniques, so I could get nearer, safely – I had to back off very quickly on a couple of occasions early on before I learnt to read their behaviour during the rutting season (3) it gave me time to save up for bigger and better – spend in haste, repent at leisure.
I can’t tell from ’I like shooting wildlife’ just how much of a passion or passing interest it is. Until you are very very sure of your wildlife interest, use a kit lens. Then, in 1-2 years time you’ll have saved a lot more money and your knowledge will be sufficient to tell us what the best lens for you is.
On the topic of 70-200mm lenses only; wildlife is my passion and weddings my income. The 70-200mm mk ll is a brilliant lens for weddings etc, razor sharp at f2.8; large aperture and very fast focussing. This isn’t my out and about lens though, I use 70-200mm f4 almost exclusively for that….it’s a lot lighter.
I appreciate it is a ‘now’ world we live in, but sit back, save up and then buy the very best glass for the job that is available. The current Mark ll lenses will never need to be replaced for a better version. 
I use a 300mm f2.8 + 1.4tc + carbon fibre tripod for wildlife. And when I’m fed up with the weight of it all I use a 100-400 mk ll – again, stunningly sharp wide open.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 6, 2016)

Simple decision - how much do you want to spend? $500 - 70-200f4.0 non-is. $1000 used 70-200f2.8vI, new 70-299 f.40is or my choice the Tamron 150-600. I use it for sports and it works best from 200-450mm - a little 
soft at 500-600 but still reasonable images.


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 6, 2016)

Harv said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Go with a 2.8 version for wildlife and teleconverters. The f/4 IS doesn't take teleconverters. If you're doing birds you could save a few hundred bucks on the non is version, because you'll need the shutter speed anyways.
> ...



I stand corrected, thank you. Google before you post, I was told that by someone with that lens, but a little search showed that you are right here.


----------



## SnappyKiwi (Jul 6, 2016)

What do you currently take pictures of and why have you decided on a 70-200?
Do you need the lens or just want it?
What sort of wildlife and where?
what sort of "stuff"
For evening/low light you will almost certainly need 2.8
for wildlife 200mm just isn't long enough (usually)

the f4 IS USM is a VERY good lens and is much lighter - but just wont cut it in lower light, plus more limited in terms of teleconverter (not likely to be renewed).
I would skip the Sigma - slower to focus, no weather sealing, image quality not up to others.
I have used the Tamron 70-200 on a Rebel T2i, 7D, 70D, 7D Mk II, 5D Mk II, 5D MKIII - it focuses fast, is very sharp, and has some weather sealing - an excellent choice.
The Canon Mark I would also be an excellent choice if you prefer to stick to Canon, but will struggle with 2x converter.

There is no hurry - lenses are still being made and dDon't be scared of second hand - but do be careful - then if you discover what you bought doesn't work for you sell it again and buy something different - treat it as a long term rental - and you just might get back what you paid anyway if you buy smart - or at least not cost you much.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 7, 2016)

SnappyKiwi said:


> ...plus more limited in terms of teleconverter (not likely to be renewed)...



Can you explain that?


----------



## LSeries (Jul 7, 2016)

The 70-200 f/4L IS USM is a lens that I will love forever  It still amazes me sometimes. The IQ is like WTF.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jul 17, 2016)

daaningrid said:


> Hello everyone
> 
> I like shooting wildlife and some stuff in the evening.(i might buy a teleconverter)


Get the new 100-400mm L Mark II


----------



## mtam (Jul 18, 2016)

As others has said already, since you're on a budget you are better off going with a used lens than a new one. There is nothing wrong with buying used. Just make sure you are buying from a very reputable vendor on ebay. Or buy it from craigslist, that way you can actually test out the item before paying it. I bought my 24-70 2.8 from craigslist, I even brought my laptop to do a quick view of the images before paying the seller. Not to scare you, but I did buy a lens on ebay which had issue. But paypal had no issue issuing a refund and the product returned to the seller. A lot of others have already suggested what to purchase. It is best to wait for items that are up for bids instead of buy it now, as you can usually get better deals.


----------

