Photography Thailand Forum

[lotuseater]

I'm will very shortly be in the market for a 70-200 for a Canon system and I was wondering what peoples thoughts are for lenses in this class. I have read that the 70-200L 2.8 IS while being very acceptable is somewhat disappointing for the nearly $1600 it costs. I have also read great things about the 70-200L f4 IS in fact the resolution tests for this lens that were done at http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/196-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-is-test-report--review are very impressive. If this is true this lens is on par with some of the best Canon L primes. It also supposedly has an equivalent of one stop advantage in the IS.

Does anyone have any direct experience with both of these lenses. I have had the opportunity to shoot with the 70-200L 2.8 IS but not the f4 version. Yes the 2.8 is going to be the superior lens in low light with moving subjects. I'm more interested in them in terms of image quality.

I would also love to know about other experience with lenes in this focal range. I am currently shooting with the 75-300 f4-5.6 IS and while it is good for the price I just find it falling a little short lately.

Cheers.

[kinginexile]

There is a big difference between 2.8 and 4, IMO. Speed/light and DOF.  I wouldn't worry or even pay credence in differences in quality, very few 2.8 owners complain about that, and few are beginners in Photography, far from it.

 the f/4IS is perfect for a traveller photographying. Depends how much dedication you have for the craft, and where. Sports, dance, indoor,  or travelling, wandering around.  Pleasure or work.

Check the new Tamron, no IS, but 2.8 and lighter somewhat:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5436/tamron-70-200mm-f28-di-ld-macro-af-sp-lens-test.html

Herve

[lotuseater]

Interesting, something to think about. The more I think about it the more I am leaning towards getting the Canon 70-200 f4 because of the quality, lower price, and smaller size. I carry my gear quite far sometimes and weight is a concern. However for the price of the 70-200 f2.8 IS I can have both the 70-200 f4 IS and possibly pick up a used copy of the 200 2.8. That would really give me the best of both worlds.

[David Salmanowitz]

I have had the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS for four years and like it very much--I think it is a fine lens.  If you look at the dpreview link here they liked it also, seems more than Nikon's counterpart. They also noted that the Nikkor is better suited for reduced sensors, where the Canon was better on full frame sensors if I am recalling all this correctly.  http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/

[epixx]

If I was a Canon user, I would have chosen the 70-200 f/4 for reach in combination with the excellent 135mm f/2 for speed. They are both wonderfully sharp lenses, and light enough for travel. For my Nikons, I have an 80-200 f/2.8, but I mostly leave it at home if it's not a paid assignment. It's simply too heavy to drag along when I travel. I mostly take a 70-300 instead.

[lotuseater]

I was out walking the other day and found a used copy of the 200 2.8 that I ended up trading my 75-300 IS and a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 lens that was not working for. I have to say I am absolutely stunned by the quality difference between these two lenses. I know that the newer 70-300 is supposed to be much higher quality than the 75-300 but there is just no comparison between that and the 200 f 2.8. It is tack sharp at 2.8 and improves only a little by f 4. It also has lightning fast auto focus, I can't believe the difference in focus time between these two lenses. Looking back I can only imagine and sob at how many shots I must have missed due to slow auto focus.

Now it just remains to be seen if I will miss the versatility of a zoom, at least till I can get the cash together for one of the 70-200s. 

[kinginexile]

the 200 is always very tempting, against the heavier and $$er zooms, and you are correct, one of the problems, still, with the pretty nice 70-300IS is the focussing, which can cause frustration. I have the 100m/2 (non-macro), and what a lovely lens, too unfairly eclipsed by its macro sibling in reviews. But that makes it a steal on the US used market. few bidders, it can be had around 200$ (as I did).

[Gubs]

I think if you shoot mainly in outdoors then the f4 is for you, but is you will use it in indoors, the the extra stop with IS will definitely dominate the other.

[theoutdoorzone]

The 80-200 f/2.8 is simply too heavy for travel, just go with the 70-300 instead.