# 70-200 Choices



## slogical (Jun 12, 2013)

I am looking to make a much needed upgraded to the 70mm+ range of my lenses. I know this is a topic that crops up quite frequently and the answer is always, quite rightly, buy the 2.8L IS II. Unfortunately my budget cannot stretch that far and is capped at £1000 which puts the Canon f4 L, Canon f4 L IS, Canon f2.8 L USM non-IS and Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM in the frame.

My work is split 50/50 between studio portraiture and concert photography. Really it has to be one of the f2.8 lenses. The concert photography is a mix of relatively stationary singers and more active bands or cabaret performers where IS wouldn't really help. The studio work is often tripod mounted but I like the freedom to hand-hold where possible.

As I might benefit from IS I am tempted by the Sigma but most reviews raise concerns about corner softness, particularly with the lens wide open. Equally as the Canon f2.8 USM is an old lens there aren't many current reviews that go into the same detail so I'm unsure whether it fares any better.

Any advice from those with more experience with either lens would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks in advance.


----------



## tron (Jun 12, 2013)

If it had to be 2.8 I would get the Canon. I used to have that lens since 1996 (or 1997 it has been a long time...)

I remember it as the first zoom lens that provided fixed lens image quality (judging from B&W enlargements).

I did not enjoy it much with my 1st digital SLR (40D) though as it was in a bag that was stolen


----------



## J.R. (Jun 12, 2013)

Get the Canon 2.8 (non IS). Or, for what you do, try out the 135L f/2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Get the Canon 2.8 (non IS). Or, for what you do, try out the 135L f/2.



+1


----------



## Zv (Jun 12, 2013)

If you earn money from these jobs you should really be investing in the 2.8 II, why spend £1000 for such an old lens? Might seem like a lot of money but the lens will eventually pay for itself when your clients see stunning images. 

If budget is tight I would recommend a second hand 135L. Second hand will get you at least £100 off that lens. I got mines second hand, and it looked barely used, for a bargain. It will mean less flexibility and no IS but you can get the job done by bumping up ISO or adding flash. Then when you've saved up the rest of the money sell it and buy the 2.8 II. 

Crop body plus the cheap 100 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 can do the trick too if you're really strapped for cash.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 12, 2013)

I have the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS.

It's grrrrrrreat. 

Here's some reviews:

FF (2011): http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/669-canon70200f28ff
APS-C: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/197-canon-ef-70-200mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review

SLR Gear(APS-C 2009): http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/72/cat/11

I *love* the guy who took the bit where you said "_Unfortunately my budget cannot stretch that far and is capped at £1000_" and replied "_If you earn money from these jobs you should really be investing in the 2.8 II, why spend £1000 for such an old lens?_". *LOVE HIM*.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Get the Canon 2.8 (non IS). Or, for what you do, try out the 135L f/2.
> ...



+2...I bought 135L few weeks ago. It's awesome 

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/81tgObei/1/6092902


----------



## Kristofgss (Jun 12, 2013)

Second hand 70-200 F2.8 L IS will be at that price as well, you can find a lot of those from everyone who didi the upgeade to the version II.


----------



## bluegreenturtle (Jun 12, 2013)

You are forgetting the brand new Tamron 2.8 vc which is exactly at your budget MSRP ($1500). It supposedly is as sharp or even a bit sharper than the canon vII.


----------



## candyman (Jun 12, 2013)

After reading your question the first thing that came up was the f/2.8 non-is. And for those specific situations use a monopod. It is easy to lift up / or close it in case you want to go hand-hold


----------



## bseitz234 (Jun 12, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I have the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS.
> 
> It's grrrrrrreat.
> 
> I *love* the guy who took the bit where you said "_Unfortunately my budget cannot stretch that far and is capped at £1000_" and replied "_If you earn money from these jobs you should really be investing in the 2.8 II, why spend £1000 for such an old lens?_". *LOVE HIM*.



Agreed!!


----------



## wjm (Jun 12, 2013)

bluegreenturtle said:


> You are forgetting the brand new Tamron 2.8 vc which is exactly at your budget MSRP ($1500). It supposedly is as sharp or even a bit sharper than the canon vII.



If just bought this lens. I'm very satisfied with it up till now. AF is good (needed some micro adjustment), IQ seems good (no extensive testing yet).


----------



## slogical (Jun 12, 2013)

Thank you for all of the replies. 

The 135L is very tempting, everyone I have spoken to previously has recommended it. For now I need the flexibility of the 70-200 focal lengths so will probably go for the Canon 2.8 L non-IS and follow up with the 135L later this year.

I do have a budget because I am only part-time semi-pro and this year I will be purchasing a 6D + other lenses and need to at least cover the cost. I'd love the IS II but it will have to wait - as I'm sure anyone who is involved in concert photography will confirm there isn't a lot of money in it! 

I had considered the Tamron VC as the reviews are good but the UK doesn't benefit from a direct exchange rate conversion of the US MSRP. The Canon 70-200 f2.8 L USM is £969 ($1521), IS II is £1799 ($2825), Tamron VC is £1299 ($2040)!

Thanks


----------



## Derrick (Jun 12, 2013)

I have owned two Canon 70-200 F2.8 non IS lenses and without comparing them to anything similar was reasonably pleased with the results. I then found that my wife's Canon 100-400 was more contrasty and sharper with a more pleasing image at 100-200. The most amazing was when compared to a Canon 70-200 f4 IS - this lens was absolutely fantastic. In my opinion a good buy (always test first) is the original Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM EX APO (non IS). I rate the IQ higher, on the Sigma copy I have, than my two original Canon 70-200 2.8's. But best of all, if f4 is okay for you - the Canon 70-200 f4 IS.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 12, 2013)

Kristofgss said:


> Second hand 70-200 F2.8 L IS will be at that price as well, you can find a lot of those from everyone who didi the upgeade to the version II.



+1 
I would definitely prefer a used, but well-kept 70-200 IS over a brand-new 70-200/2.8 non-IS. At concerts IS really is an asset.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 12, 2013)

Don't overlook Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, amazing! At 1499 it's the next best thing to Canon's top 70-200 and hundreds less.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 12, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



At risk of nesting quotes...

+3 on the 135L - also works great with the 1.4x extender


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 12, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> At risk of nesting quotes...
> +3 on the 135L - also works great with the 1.4x extender



Yes, it is a great lens. But it might be too long in the studio and it may not be flexible enough when covering vraious concerts at various venues ... and putting on and off a teleconverter is definitely no option in a concert situation. ;-)


----------



## Hannes (Jun 12, 2013)

If you don't need weather sealing I'd go for the sigma. It is in most reviews sharper than canon's v1 and a fair bit cheaper. If you are happy buying used though the canon 2.8 IS can often be found for less than £1000


----------



## bholliman (Jun 12, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > At risk of nesting quotes...
> ...



+4 on the 135L! Awesome lens.

The 135L has a 36" minimum focal distance, less than the 47" for the 70-200 2.8 zoom. I find the 135L very useful indoors on a full format camera. On a crop body it will probably be too long for a studio.


----------



## cayenne (Jun 12, 2013)

slogical said:


> I am looking to make a much needed upgraded to the 70mm+ range of my lenses. I know this is a topic that crops up quite frequently and the answer is always, quite rightly, buy the 2.8L IS II. Unfortunately my budget cannot stretch that far and is capped at £1000 which puts the Canon f4 L, Canon f4 L IS, Canon f2.8 L USM non-IS and Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM in the frame.
> 
> My work is split 50/50 between studio portraiture and concert photography. Really it has to be one of the f2.8 lenses. The concert photography is a mix of relatively stationary singers and more active bands or cabaret performers where IS wouldn't really help. The studio work is often tripod mounted but I like the freedom to hand-hold where possible.
> 
> ...



You could always *wait and save a bit more $$$* and then buy the canon 70-200 L f/2.8.

I often wait and save...do without and buy the best I can on most anything I do, rather than compromise. If you have $1K...wait and save a bit more, use your current gear, wait for a sale or one of the refurbs.

Another option...many online stores allow you to have credit accounts, like the Amazon Store Card. They give you 12mos interest free payments.

Personally, I do the 12mos interest free EVEN when I have cash in hand...I put the cash into savings earn a little interest and let the stores pay for me to pay it out over a year.

In fact, I just this month paid off my 70-200 f/2.8 that I got form crutchfield. I used their interest free charge, and I'd bought my camera there so I had a lot of credits on their rewards points system..I got mine for approx $1600 on 6mos interest free.

There are deals to be had, so, my advice, wait and SAVE...and get the best.

Personally, I don't see myself ever buying another lens slower than 2.8, with the exception of the 24mm TS lens.

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## ewg963 (Jun 12, 2013)

Psssssst!!!!! Get the Canon 2.8 and never look back!!!!!!


----------



## ewg963 (Jun 12, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Get the Canon 2.8 (non IS). Or, for what you do, try out the 135L f/2.



+10000


----------



## greger (Jun 13, 2013)

Get the 70-200 2.8 non IS first, the 6D then upgrade to the 70-200 2.8 ll if and when you can. You might get by without
IS but you may not get by without 2.8. I sometimes hit the limit with my F4 IS USM and wish I had F2.8. I hit the limit
with my 100-400 F4.5-5.6 this past weekend and needed wider F stops. If you can use a monopod at the Concerts you won't need IS. Good Luck!


----------



## Gary W. (Jun 13, 2013)

Hey all,

Get the Tamron! It is sharper than the Sigma, Canon IS vI, Canon non IS, and about the same as Canon's vII. It is also weather sealed, unlike the Sigma or the non IS Canon. At $1499, a very good deal when compared to vII and that it beats the rest!

Gary W.


----------



## tron (Jun 13, 2013)

Gary W. said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Get the Tamron! It is sharper than the Sigma, Canon IS vI, Canon non IS, *and about the same as Canon's vII*. It is also weather sealed, unlike the Sigma or the non IS Canon. At $1499, a very good deal when compared to vII and that it beats the rest!
> 
> Gary W.



Regarding "about the same as Canon's vII" 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=833&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Canon is much better at 200mm f/2.8


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 13, 2013)

I owned the f2.8L usm for a while and I really liked it, but my issue with is sad that it was a little front focused and my camera at the time 60d didn't have afma... so I couldn't fix the problem. so I would suggest the Canon if your body does afma...


----------



## Gary W. (Jun 13, 2013)

Hey all,

I don't shoot pictures of test patterns, and I guess that I must have an excellent copy, then! All I am saying is that the Canon vII is not @$800 better than the Tamron! The VC and AF are dead silent, as well!

Gary W.



tron said:


> Gary W. said:
> 
> 
> > Hey all,
> ...


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 13, 2013)

slogical said:


> l
> 
> I had considered the Tamron VC as the reviews are good but the UK doesn't benefit from a direct exchange rate conversion of the US MSRP. The Canon 70-200 f2.8 L USM is £969 ($1521), IS II is £1799 ($2825), Tamron VC is £1299 ($2040)!
> 
> Thanks


 ouch... I paid only $1700 for my used IS mkii. I'm very pleased with it, but I also have a 5d. mkiii now, so it does go hand in hand.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 13, 2013)

Every time I use my Tamron I am more than happy I paid only 1499 and didn't get the Canon mkll.


----------



## tron (Jun 14, 2013)

Gary W. said:


> Hey all,
> 
> I don't shoot pictures of test patterns, and I guess that I must have an excellent copy, then! All I am saying is that the Canon vII is not @$800 better than the Tamron! The VC and AF are dead silent, as well!
> 
> ...


You don't shoot test patterns but you just say that Tamron is ... about the same as Canon's 70-200 2.8 II.

However, test patterns are pictures which show much more than simple words like "is about the same"


----------



## Gary W. (Jun 15, 2013)

Hey all,

Don't get me wrong... the vII is a great lens, and the Tamron, IN MY OPINION, is almost as good as the vII. There is not $800 difference, IN MY OPINION, between the two lenses.

Gary W.


----------



## rs (Jun 15, 2013)

If you ever plan on using a 70-200 with a TC, it's worth bearing in mind the Tamron's performance falls a long way short of the Canon 70-200 II

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=833&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 15, 2013)

That hardly looked way short to me! fwiw, I use the Tammy 70-200 VC with a Tamron Pro 1.4 TC and it is incredibly sharp. Not unhappy.


----------



## fegari (Jun 15, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> That hardly looked way short to me! fwiw, I use the Tammy 70-200 VC with a Tamron Pro 1.4 TC and it is incredibly sharp. Not unhappy.



?

That is a tremendous difference! no contest here


----------

