Which Canon 70-200mm lens

[matt]

Hi all.

Have been weighing up the pros and cons of the various configurations of L series telephoto zooms in this range and am wondering what you think?

I'm leaning toward the f/2.8 non-IS version of this lens...which has garnered rave reviews since it was released and remains incredibly popular.

There's a saving between the IS and non-IS model of about $700, which appeals to me.

I'm not sure I really need the image stabilisation, since my other L lenses (25-70 and 17-40) also don't have this feature and I'm getting along fine with those:D

I understand IS might be handy when working at the upper end (200mm) of the zoom range, but figure the non-IS f/2.8 is fast enough to enable high shutter speeds anyway.

I've really not given much thought to the two f4 versions of this lens.

I'll mostly be using this for terrestrial use with my 40D, but I wouldn't mind turning the rig skyward occasionally for some astro work too.

Any thoughts?

[acropolite]

If you don't have it you won't miss it, just don't try a lens with IS.

IS is useful at any focal length over the range 70-200. I bought the 70-200 F4 IS, because it's lighter than the 2.8, more compact, a whole lot cheaper and reputed to be sharper than the 2.8.

[Tilt]

I have the non-IS version of the f/2.8 70-200, essentially I was in the same boat (IS or not) when I was deciding on a longer zoom. What I have found is with the ability to use f/2.8 through out the zoom range I have not really had any issues with enough light, or if I did I would just pump the ISO up a touch to speed things up.

Michael

[matt]

I used to have IS with the 17-85 EFS. To be honest...it didn't really set my world on fire. Do you really think it makes that much of a difference Phil?

[Dennis]

Hi Matt

This is a most difficult choice and one which I went through, although finances prevented me from realistically including the F2.8 in my list!

I’ve got the 70-200mm F4L IS and fortunately, with hindsight, it turned out to be the best lens for me. Big features for my applications are the relatively small physical size, its light weight – it is an easy lens to wear all day long, fits in a medium sized camera bag, has very fast auto focus and is as sharp as the proverbial razor.

I find myself operating mostly at the 200mm end of the range, but have used the 70mm end sufficiently enough to avoid any feelings of remorse in not just getting the 200mm F2.8 prime.

In terms of IS, it has been very useful on a few occasions where I would probably have missed the shot without it. Generally, if I know that I’m going to be shooting at low shutter speeds, I’ll take my carbon fibre tripod rather than rely on IS. If I want to pixel peep and obtain the sharpest photos possible, I would always try to use a tripod, remote release and the mirror lock up via Live View.

With IS, I am comforted by the knowledge that it is there if needed, although I always try to minimize the need to use it. It does appear to work exactly as stated.

Cheers

Dennis

[matt]

Hmmm.

Two solid votes for the f4 IS USM....and one for the non-IS 2.8...

Decisions...decisions.

[Tilt]

Another thing to consider is the weight of these lenses. The f/2.8 is heavy, at first when you pick it up you think "hey, this isn't too bad" but after 10-15mins of walking around with it, I say it begins to become a bit of work. What is your budget anyway?

Michael

[matt]

Well...clearly enough to afford any of the 4 lenses in the 70-200mm L range:D

Weight won't worry me much. Given I carry the 24-70mm around and that's close to 1kg:scared: What a brick.....but what a performer;)

[Tilt]

Well mate, without budget restrictions (and if a heavy lens doesn't bother you) go straight to the top. Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

Michael

[acropolite]

Matt, IS on 17-85 is no big deal it's once you get up in F/L that the IS is important. I had the 17-70 Sigma lens and didn't miss the IS.

FWIW the IS on the 70-200 is a different beast to that on the 17-85.

The IS on the 70-200 has 2 modes. In mode 2 you can set the IS to only work in one plane, so IS is useable on panning shots. As Dennis has already pointed out it's very useful at the long end of the range, and particularly so if you like to shoot in natural light.

[troypiggo]

I had the 70-200 2.8 IS. While it was a great lens, I sold it because I found I just don't use that focal range. I shoot either wider than 70 and use my 10-22 or 17-55, or shoot much longer than 200 and use my 100-400. Anyway...

If I had my time again, I'd go with the f/4, probably the IS version. The f/2.8 is nice to have, but rarely used it and you stop down a little anyway to get sharper image. My brother has the f/4 non-IS and you fair dinkum cut your eyeballs looking at shots taken with that one they're so sharp.

The 2.8 is much heavier and bulkier. f/4 fits in the bag easier and lighter to hold around your neck or while shooting.

IS vs non-IS - I have always used it, but sometimes wonder whether I need to. I tend to try to keep my shutter speeds up for handheld anway and play with ISO to help out. Depends how steady your hands are too.

So my vote would be for the f/4 non-IS or IS. Save some bucks.

[AlexN]

I had the F/4 non IS, it was fantastic..

In sharpness, its been said on many sites that the order is:
70-200 F/4L
70-200 F/2.8L
70-200 F/4L IS
70-200 F/2.8L IS

I now have a 200 F/2.8L mkII prime, as I found I didn't really use the shorter end of the zoom (and for what its worth, I dont like zooms anyway..) The 200 F/2.8 prime is noticeably sharper than the zooms, so if you think you can get away without the flexibility, then the prime is perhaps a better option.

Do remember, holding a heavy zoom lense is a lot different holding a heavy wide angle all day long... I thought as you did before I got into long focal lenght photography.. after having owned quite a few heavy wide angle lenses, weighing in at up to 1kg... The 70-200 F/2.8L is 1.38kgs, but its long... this equates to a very different dispersion of weight, and it can get a little uncomfortable at times.. That said, I happily walk around with a 300 f/2.8 on a regular basis... It all depends on what you're used to carrying...

I say read every review online you can find, figure out what you require..

My personal thoughts.. Go the F/4L.. IS is not that bigger deal really, and provided you dont intend to use it indoors or in really low light conditions, you wont need IS or the heavier F/2.8..

My 2c

[matt]

Hi guys.

Well...the deal is done and the purchase made.

I went with the lighter, more compact and affordable F4L IS....If it's good enough for Dennis, it's good enough for me:)

I'm looking forward to packing it in the bag with my 17-40 and 24-70 for the trip to NZ in a few weeks.

Thanks to all of you for your valued input:thumbsup:

[troypiggo]

Congrats on the purchase! :)

FWIW - I bet you'll use your 17-40 the most on that trip, maybe the 24-70, then probably the 70-200 least ;)

[matt]

Hey Alex. Is that in ascending or descending order? I'm guessing the F/2.8L IS is at the top of the tree?

Cheers.

[troypiggo]

Nope. The f/4 L's are sharpest consistently.

[AlexN]

Troy is correct, the F/4L's are consistently sharper than the more expensive, heavier F/2.8L's

[matt]

So the F4L IS is only third sharpest on the list???

I'm confused how an F4L with IS can produce less sharp results than a non-IS F4 version of the same lens?!

Ah well.....

[acropolite]

Matt there are some theories that say that introducing a moving lens element compromises sharpness. Whether that assumption is based in accurate observation or is just speculation is debatable. I've also seen written that the lens construction is improved with the IS optics to ensure it is as sharp as the non IS version. I suspect that if you tested several side by side you wouldn't see any difference. One thing that is consistently reported is that the f2.8 is more prone to flare than the F4 and that the F4 is sharper.

[matt]

Thanks Phil.

Alex might have to bump the F/4L IS at least one spot up his list, then?;):P

Particularly given his assertion that: "the F/4L's are consistently sharper than the more expensive, heavier F/2.8L's..."

Regardless, I'm happy with the purchase and will give it a bit of a try-out this weekend...to get a feel for its build and features, and to see how it performs.

Cheers, fellas!

[troypiggo]

Oh mate, don't take the above as meaning that the lens you bought is not sharp. You will be most happy with it. Guaranteed. These comparisons are really pixel-peeping and nit-picking over the tiniest little thing. You have bought a great lens that will serve you very well for a long time.

[matt]

It's all good, Troy:thumbsup: I was just trying to understand what was being stated.

I'm sure the lens will perform very nicely, and it's only one of a number of lenses in my camera bag.

I'll post some shots when I get a chance.

Cheers:)

[CometGuy]

Matt,

To quote Photozone:

"The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS is the very best zoom lens tested to date in Canon mount. The resolution figures (center/border) at all focal length and all tested aperture settings are nothing short of stunning and also as good as the best fix-focals in this range. At f/11 there´s the usual decline in quality due to diffraction - this is a physical limit. Truly remarkable. "

But the reality is all the Canon 70-200 lenses are exceptional and your selection is based on intended purpose/price rather than ultimate sharpness.

For astrophotography I haven't seen anything done with the 70-200 4 IS yet, so you might be the "guinea pig" Matt. I know the 70-200 2.8 and 4.0 non-IS are excellent lenses for astrophotography, and I've seen mixed comments about the 70-200 2.8 IS lens.

Terry