Buying decisions: 70-200 4 IS or 2.8 non IS AND 17-40 or 10-22? [Archive]

View Full Version : Buying decisions: 70-200 4 IS or 2.8 non IS AND 17-40 or 10-22?

Andrew Lee

01-08-2009, 01:33 AM

Hi all,

I am looking to expand on my lens collection, whihc at the moment consists solely of a 50mm 1.8 mkII (whihc is an awesome lens, btw).

I'd like a lens for mostly for street portraits as well as a little sports and movement action. The 70-200 focal length suits me well, but I can't decide between the f4 with IS and the f2.8 without IS.

Ideally I'd like to leave the tripod at home (it makes you so much moreconspicuouswhen trying to take candid shots). Would the faster aperture make up for the lack of IS? Or will IS allow me to go to slower shutter speeds and get more light in that way? The shallower DOF of the 2.8 is also attractive.

In addition to a long lens, I would also like some wide angle glass for architecture and urban landscapes. I've tried a friends 17-40 L and its very nice indeed, the wide end seems wide enough for me. For those that have the 10-22, is it too wide some uses or is the smaller focal range ok? The flexibility of having a wider zoom range seems worthwhile.

Thanks for any advice.

Cheers,

A.

Tim

01-08-2009, 01:42 AM

I have the 50mm 1.8 too, but who doesn't?

I also have the 17-40 and love it (on a 30D), I would recommend it to anyone. Although I've never tried the 10-22, I can't recall ever wanting a wider lens.

Bill M.

01-08-2009, 02:09 AM

If your goal is to do mostly street portraits and you would like to remain a little more discrete, then the 70-200m f4 IS would probably be the better choice since it is smaller and slightly less noticeable (even though any white/grey lens will draw more attention). I've been using the f4 IS for the past year and it's a great lens, tack sharp with the newest IS system. I don't think I've ever seen a bad comment on that lens...

The 70-200mm 2.8 would be better if your doing a lot of action/sports shots or low-light shooting, it doesletin twice the lightcompared to the f4(but I think it really is a toss up between the 2.8 non-IS and the f4 IS versions in real-world use). I've been contemplating switching to the 2.8 IS version myself since I do a lot of indoor shooting.

I had the 17-40mm lens for about 2 years and loved it as well. I had a really sharp copy and I hated to part with it but I wanted a little more reach for a walk around lens in the 24-105. If your going to do architecture then I would say the 10-22 isn't too wide, but are you also looking for a general walk around lens as well? The 10-22 might not cut it for that. The other advantage of the 17-40 is that if you were ever considering switching to a FF body later, then you won't have to worry about it being compatible.

martyn

01-08-2009, 04:54 AM

I've got the 70-200 2.8 (IS) and find it too much for walking around a city and taking candid shots here and there, especially if taking pictures is not the primary reason for the outing. It doesn't work for me when I want to stay inconspicuous either.

If you want a street portrait lens, why not go for the 70-200 f4 NON-IS? As Bryan says in his reviews, IS doesn't stop subject movement. Whilst buildings don't move (hopefully!) all the other interesting stuff you want to shoot on the streets - people, vehicles, animals - *are* moving and IS won't help you with those. There's quite a big price difference between the IS and the non-IS too, money you can put towards other toys.

I also have the 10-22 and yes, I find the zoom range too limited for it to be a general walk around a city and take some shots lens. I am very happy with it for the purpose I bought it for though, which is taking wide shots.

Tony Printezis

01-21-2009, 11:23 PM

Hi,

I have three out of the four lenses mentioned (10-22, 17-40, and 70-200 f4 IS). Here are some thoughts.

Regarding the 70-200 choice, that's a tough one mate! The f2.8 non-IS will of course be better for action shots of moving subjects, the f4 IS will be better (IMHO at least!) for static shots, especially in low light and when wanting to maintain some depth-of-field (f2.8 is one stop faster than f4, the IS in the 70-200 f4 IS lens will give you up to four stops handholdability). As some of the other friends already said here, the f4 IS is half the weight and physically smaller than the f2.8 so it's easier to carry. And the f4 IS is supposed to be a bit sharper too. A couple more points: if you have other L zooms, they are likely to take 77mm filters. You will be able to use them on the f2.8 too, but not on the f4 as it takes the more unusual size of 67mm (even though you can get a step ring; I got one). Also, the f2.8 comes with its tripod mount ring, the f4 doesn't (so it's an extra cost if you really want it; damn you Canon!).

Regarding the wide lenses, the two are basically quite different and address different issues (on 1.6 crop sensors at least). The 17-40 is my favorite general-purpose lens (on my XTi and 40D) and if I go sight-seeing and want to take only one lens, I take the 17-40. It's very sharp, nicely built, reasonably priced, and you will be able to use it on a FF camera, if you ever get one (so, it's nicely "future-proof"). But, sometimes, you do want to go wider. And for that, the 10-22 is just the business. :-) I love going extra wide and I find it lots of fun and a very creative way to shoot. I never regretted getting it (even though it's quite expensive for an EF-S lens; and it's construction quality is not anywhere near as good as the 17-40). Is it too wide at 10mm (equivalent of 16mm)? It naturally depends on what you shoot. But, for me: no chance! Sometimes, I would have liked to have gone wider. It's great for confined spaces, small streets, etc. But, it's more of a specialized lens and not really a general-purpose lens (unlike the 17-40). I.e., you will need to pair it up with another lens to get a more useful focal length range.

Last September I was in Greece and I spent some time in a few Cycladic islands (Syros, Mykonos, and Santorini). I spent a lot of time in small and tight streets with my 10-22 mounted on my 40D and my 70-200 f4 IS mounted on my XTi. Despite the gap in the focal length, it was a very useful combination and did most of my shooting with those two lenses.

Anyway, I got carried away a bit here... hope this helps!

Tony

Gian Luca

01-22-2009, 12:52 PM

MVers

01-22-2009, 02:44 PM

I
tried the f 2.8 on a 40D, sharpness was poor wide opened, and did not
improved a lot when stopped down, at least not as much as the 70-200 f
4.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #1f497d;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]My feeling is that the f 2.8 works better on full frame sensor.

That
is not true at all. If anything the 70-200/2.8IS (or any lens for that
matter) would perform worse on the 5D than it would on a 40D due to the
larger image circle of FF exposing more of the lenses edge performance.
It sounds to me like your lens is better calibrated on your 5D than it
is on your friends 40D. In my experience with the 70-200/2.8IS on both
40D and 5D I did not notice any IQ degradation when swapping between
bodies, the only thing different was the amount of PP sharpening due to
the 5D weak AA filter (5D less, 40D more).

As to the OP's original question, have you considered the 85/1.8 and 135L as a substitute for any of the 70-200's?
I only mention them because of what you want to shoot, street candids
and sports. For street hauling around a larger white lens attracts a
lot of attention to you--of course if that's what your looking for by
all means but for a stealthier approach the 85/1.8 and 135L combo work
very well together (not to mention being able to kill busy backgrounds
with wider apertures). For sports (specifically indoors), while you loose versatility you gain much better low light performance. If the prime recommendation is a no go I'd suggest the 70-200/2.8 over the f/4IS--there is no substitution for faster aperture. While the f/4IS is the sharpest of the 70-200's, IS does not stop motion so for sports it is almost completely negligible (aside for panning in mode 2) and f/4 is extremely limiting when it comes to shooting moving subjects in low light. While the f/4IS is lighter and smaller than the 2.8's it will not help you any when shooting the type of photography you listed.

As for WA's you may find the Canon 10-22 much more useful on your crop body for landscapes and architecture. Some others you may want to check out is the Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16/2.8 or the Tokina 12-24. The Tokina 11-16, while its range is very small, is the best performing lens in terms of sharpness of the group and its f/2.8 aperture could come in handy if ever shooting indoor architecture in low light when a tripod is unavailable--well worth a look specifically if you're planning on getting a mid range zoom in the future (something along the lines of a 17-40 or EF-S 17-55).

-Matt

mchorvat

01-22-2009, 03:35 PM

I have three of the four: 70-200mm f2.8 IS; 17-40mm; 10-22mm

I have a Rebel XT that I initially mated with the 17-40. Great walk around lens. It could maybe use a bit more reach at times. It makes up for that in image quality. Not being able to get into a FF body for a few years (5D II might happen this year) I wanted a lens that was wider.

Hence the 10-22. As the review on this site states it is a pretty nice build and would be L if not for the EF-S limitation. I really enjoy this glass for landscapes and architecture. It is wide, really wide. Group portraits, casual settings and candids can get really wonky, really fast. It is fun, but I usually make sure I have the 17-40 in my bag just in case.I do find myself having to go back and correct CA in contrasty lighting conditions. It's minimal but if I can see it on my 8.0mp body then it is there.

If you think FF is going to happen in the near future, I would go with the 17-40. If not, you might want to try the 10-22. At least you can back out the 50 if needed.

As for the tele, tough call. The IS is great for indoor shots. Outdoors the added f-stop will help you stop more action when the sky is overcast. So, say you're at the air/water show in July but it overcast. You'd like to have f2.8 when you want to stop the afterburner on the f-22 raptor. I know, it's 50% more cash than the f4 IS. Consider it an heirloom.

Snap

01-31-2009, 12:14 PM

Hi all,

I have a 450D and the 24-105mm f/4. Looking to get a longer lens and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS seems ideal. I have young kids who scoot around pretty fast, and would prefer a wider aperture to better stop action.

The thing that's holding me back though is that the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS seems to have been around a while: it was introduced in Sep 2001. 7-years is a pretty long time for a product to be out. I'm thinking it's long overdue for an upgrade in the form of a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II.

The original 16-35mm f/2.8 was released in Dec 2001, just 4-months after the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. And Canon introduced the new and improved 16-35mm f/2.8 II about a year back. I'm speculating it'll be fairly soon beforethe 70-200mm f/2.8 ISfollows suit -- upgraded IS from 3-stops to 4, replacement of 2 UD elements with 1 fluorite lens (similar to the f4s) for better optical performance.

Would very much appreciate your advise and thoughts, folks,on the likelihood of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS being updated with a Mark II within the next 12 to 18-months.

Max@Home

02-01-2009, 04:43 AM

I am looking to expand on my lens collection, which at the moment consists solely of a 50mm 1.8 mkII (which is an awesome lens, btw).

I'd like a lens for mostly for street portraits as well as a little sports and movement action. The 70-200 focal length suits me well, but I can't decide between the f4 with IS and the f2.8 without IS.

Ideally I'd like to leave the tripod at home (it makes you so much moreconspicuouswhen trying to take candid shots). Would the faster aperture make up for the lack of IS? Or will IS allow me to go to slower shutter speeds and get more light in that way? The shallower DOF of the 2.8 is also attractive.

...to stop action, you would need a shutterspeed of 1/125 or such minimum, but for a candid portrait 1/30 to 1/60 might do, meaning the 4x IS of the 70-200F4IS might come handy. And since it is 'candid' you will be relative further away, leaning more to the 200mm end, so a decent bokeh/separation from the background should be possible/achievable with the F4...

In addition to a long lens, I would also like some wide angle glass for architecture and urban landscapes. I've tried a friends 17-40 L and its very nice indeed, the wide end seems wide enough for me. For those that have the 10-22, is it too wide for some uses or is the smaller focal range ok? The flexibility of having a wider zoom range seems worthwhile.

The 10-22 is optically as nice as the 17-40, almost equally build [:)] It is the perfect 'specialist' lens for the two applications you describe (architecture and -urban- landscape), and can be used with good results for 'street' too (at the 20 to 22 end, otherwise peoples features get distorted [:)] ). And if you are fine with buying EF-S lenses: the extra range, IS and speed of the EF-S 17-55F2.8 IS - as compared with the 17-40F4L - might be worthwhile investigating [:)]

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

Tony Printezis

02-01-2009, 09:32 PM

The 10-22 is optically as nice as the 17-40

Not quite, the 10-22 tends to get a bit soft on the edges on the "longer" (I can't really call 22m long!!!) focal lengths... it's great for what it does, though. But, for the overlapping focal lengths, I think the 17-40 wins.

almost equally build

No chance. :-) The 17-40 is leagues better than the 10-22 build-wise.

Tony

bongo

02-01-2009, 11:17 PM

I'm only an amateur so I'm not sure how valuable my advice is, but I'll tell youabout mypersonal experience.

I was in your situation two months ago. I onlyhad theOKlens that came with my digital rebelxti kit and wanted to expand.After a lot of research Ibought the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. It has helped me produce my best photos so farand i love it. It's more expensive, but if you're going to buy an L lens that has a few different versions of itself, go all the way. It's an investment that you won't regret, especially if you want to push your potential.

In theory, I suppose, you could rely on slower shutter speeds with the 70-200 f/4 IS to shoot in low light. BUT, youwill limit yourself because motion will have to be blurred with a slower shutter. Blurred motion canproduce some nice effects, but if it's the only kind of effect you can create, it could be upsetting.With 2.8, you can still freeze motion at concerts, when the sun goes down etc. and get acceptable quality. (Concerts are SO HARD to shoot! ARGH!)

Personally, I will always go with thelower f number. My EFs18-55mm f/3.5 lens is useless once the sun starts going down or if I'm indoors, or it's shady. Wide open,the 70-200f/2.8 IS ispretty sharp, but it gets so sharp from 4 beyond, it's ridiculous. And f4 is where the other lens only begins!

hope that gives you a little bit of insight, and congrats on your first L purchase!

Benjamin

02-01-2009, 11:24 PM

I personally have the 70-200/4L IS and I think I don't need to look any further if my goal is street shots and a little sport (in not bad lighting). I'm sure that the F2.8 aperture willNOT make up the IS if you're talking about handholdability since that I get consistent good shots at 1/30 @200mm. I will not handhold the 70-200/2.8 at all at this speed no matter what focal length I'm using. Also note that the F4L IS is half as heavy as the f2.8. If you goal is also to save weight, the F4L IS is right for you.

regarding wide angle, I would prefer the 17-40/4L in your case because this lens is capable for full frame usage and it is a L grade lens. since you mentioned the 10-22, I'm going to assume you have a 1.6x cropped body. Choices among the 3rd party lenses also make sense as they deliver more for the cost.

mark

02-02-2009, 01:21 AM

ll depends on what you have for a camera body

Colin

02-02-2009, 01:33 AM

True, and what you think you WILL have for a camera body in the near future.

If the camera has really good higher ISO performance, you can make up for the 'speed' of the lens with the sensitivity of the camera.

You can buy an 'L' lens for a camera with a smaller sensor, but you'll never really get the image potential out of that lens until you go full frame.

BTW, it seems that I was missing some information on using lenses designed for small sensors on full frame cameras. Nikon and Sony allow you to do it. I didn't think this possible with a full frame body and a 'Small sensor' lens, but apparently Nikon and Sony 'cheat' so to speak, by simply using the full frame sensors inner area to act like a 'small' sensor. The resolution used, in terms of pixel count, drops to less than half of the original sensor resolution, and what you see in the viewfinder isn't going to be what you get, but at least you can use your old lenses.

If you were starting from scratch, it would be a stupid way to do it, but it does acknoledge that many users may want to use some of their old 'small' lenses, and if it were an application where you were going to crop anyway, because you wouldn't want to be paying for or carrying around the glass that would get you 'close enough', maybe it makes sense there too.

booker

02-12-2009, 06:48 PM

Easy choice, get the 2.8. Even better, save for a couple weeks and just get yourself the 2.8 IS, you're already spending over a grand, what's a couple hundred more if you save for it?

Some people mention the f4 being less conspicuous. Oh pleez. If you're worried about the color then get a lens jacket for $15 or wrap it in gaff tape.

The difference from f4 to f2.8 is light years, don't sell yourself short and get the real deal.

Gian Luca

02-12-2009, 09:24 PM

I did not answer untill I did not find this review that confirm my data on 70-200 f 2.8 on APS sensor

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page6.asp ("http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page6.asp)

DPREVIEW.com states:

Conclusion - Cons
<ul type="square"]
Slightly soft wide open (most notably on APS-C)
[/list]

LoneSierra

02-13-2009, 06:23 PM

I can't give you any advice on the 70-200 IS or non from experience, but at that point I'd probably go with the IS. I mean, if you want to leave the tripod at home, you're probably really going to want the IS, even though it's a little slower, but if IS corrects for 3 or 4 stops, that's going to be a bigger difference than the physical extra size of the aperture, since it's only a 1 or 2 stop bigger ap. size.

As far as the wide angle, I don't own one, but I've used it, and you can seriously get 5 feet of wall into a picture, when your 1.5 feet away from it. Obviously the distortion becomes present, but acceptable for that crazy 10mm angle. When zoomed in to 22mm the distortion is all but invisible, they did an incredible job on this "non L" lens. It's going to be my next lens, actually. You can't ever seem to get far enough away inside, especially for weddings, and even zoomed in at 22mm it's still wide, and the distortion is all but non existant.

You can fix a little bit of it in photoshop too, so the lens is extremely useable through the whole focal range.

Hope that helped a little!

Keith B

02-14-2009, 12:52 PM

While IS may not stop things in motion, it allows you to shoot at slower shutter speeds that will still freeze relatively slow moving objects in sStreet portraits but would normally blur due to hand shake.

Rule of thumb is you shutter speed should be 1/(focal length)to avoid hand shake blurring. So at 200mm you would need at least 1/200. With IS you could probably shoot at 1/60(?) and still freeze your subject pretty well and not experience blurring from hand shake.

I owned the 70-200 4.0 non IS and I hardly used it. At that focal length w/o IS. I couldn't find too many uses for unless it was studio portrait with strobe lighting or outdoor sports on bright days. So I sold that with in a year of purchase.

So for discretion and value I'd say 4.0 IS.