70-200 f2.8L IS

[bob williams]

I have been saving for months to buy this lens, and now that I am in a position to do so, I am asking myself why. My current arsenal consists of a 10-22, 24-105 and a 100-400. I primarily shoot wildlife, some nature and landscapes and would like to do some macro. I especially like shooting birds, although my craft isn't up to Nates level YET. Generally, I have been less than satisfied with the IQ of the 100-400. The weakness in my current lens inventory is that I don't have anything that is remotely considerd "fast" or anything with outstanding IQ--hence, my desire for the 70-200 f2.8 L IS. Since I like to shoot at sunrise or sunset, I find the 100-400 lacking. Any wisdom from the forum members would be appreciated.





Thanks,


Bob

[musickna]

As you yourself point out, getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, will give you a wider aperture lens, always useful in terms of both low light and depth of field. I don't think you'll find the IQ of this lens significantly better than that of any of the lenses you currently own, at least in my own experience (I personally think the IQ of my 70-200mm f/4L non-IS is better at the edges than my f/2.8). If you really want absolutely outstanding IQ particularly in terms of sharpness, you should consider the telephoto primes. But that starts to get very expensive.


Remember that version II of this lens is about to hit the streets. That may well be a knockout IQ-wise. Probably worth waiting to get the word on this before you buy.

[Bill W]

Bob, like yourself I've become underwhelmed by the 100-400 low light abilities....New England cloudy days(there's lots of them in the winter) make for difficult BIF shooting.


My reasoning for wanting to purchase the 70-200 IS 2.8 is for my Hummingbird garden which becomes shaded quite earlyand remains that way through out the day....but as you can see the 70-200wouldn't help my BIF shooting.


So at the moment I'm thinking I'll keep on saving for a big (medium?), faster prime, e.g. 300 f/2.8 w/a 1.4x (this cost is a little more palatable to me than the 500 f/4) and rent the 500 f/4 for the special occasions I need some really long reach, e.g. spring GBH nesting ritual.


My thoughts arethe 300 w/a 1.4x =420, f/4will increase mykeepers (in focus,low lightBIF shots) and IQ will suffer minimally w/the 1.4x set up. Plus the 300 f/2.8will work nicely in the HB garden w/out the 1.4x.


But then again, ask me tomorrow....I may have a whole different set of thoughts, like upgrading my 40D to a 7D for a better AF and low light system....and much cheaper.


I don't know if this helps you, but it's nice to know someone else knows your delemma.[*-)]


Good luck


Bill

[Brendan7]

@bob williams


I suggest the 300 f/4. It has decent macro capabilities and twice as fast as your 100-400 from 300mm on. I have one (it's my only lens) and love it. It may not be a huge step up, heck you'd make money selling your 100-400 and buying the 300. The 70-200 2.8 is not a good wildlife lens, the f4 IS version is considered to be much better for birds, etc. If you need something telephoto and something fast, you're stuck with the $4000 300 f/2.8. But I think the IQ of the 4/300 is better, but not quite "outstanding".





@bill W


Why do you want a 70-200 for your hummingbird gardens? As you know they're tiny and so max magnification is very important. at least .2x is nice. Have you considered/do you have a 100 macro? Wickerprints has shot some beauties with that lens. just an idea. Good luck with that 7D!


brendan

[Bill W]

Brendan.....I have a couple of reasons concerning your question; the obvious would be the 2.8 for the shaded garden and secondly I don't want tostress the HBs by setting up (tripod, camera and myself)too closely to the feeding area.


If you are going to shoot wildlife, you need to recognize the animals'comfort zone and IMHOthe 100is too close.


BTW....thanks for your input on the 7D. I thought I'd have some hits from folks that actually made the transition...que sera, sera.


I'm still on the fence w/my decision....lens, camera (I'm familiar w/the glass mantra, but there are always exceptions)? I'm not in a hurry, the HBs show up in May.


Bill

[alexniedra]

My current arsenal consists of a 10-22, 24-105 and a 100-400.


I think the 70-200 2.8 L IS will complement your other lenses very well. You will find it especially useful for when the 100-400 L is not sufficiently fast, like indoors or before sunrise, for example.



I primarily shoot wildlife, some nature and landscapes and would like to do some macro.


The 70-200 2.8 L IS is great for wildlife and nature photography, especially when light is less than perfect. Occasionally you may find that you want extra reach when shooting birds and other long-distance wildlife, but extenders can help, making it possible to achieve 280mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 (you already have that covered) with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters respectively. I wouldn't assume that reach would be a major problem for you, as you are already using the 100-400 L.


Overall, I think you are thinking very clearly about your needs. I think that the 70-200 2.8 L IS will be a great addition to your kit.

[neuroanatomist]

I have an alternate suggestion for you to consider, in addition to Brendan's suggestion of the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM. You "shoot wildlife, some nature and landscapes and would like to do some macro," and also expressed a desire for something "fast...with outstanding IQ." As Bill stated, 100mm is not long enough for wildlife, so if you're considering the 70-200mm f/2.8L you'll probably spend most of the time at 200mm. If are willing to forego IS (you probably need fast shutter speeds to freeze bird motion, which renders IS moot), you might consider the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM prime lens ("http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx). In his review, Bryan closes by stating, "If you simply want thebest image quality you can get at 200mm, the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens is for you." The 200mm prime will also yield better results with the 1.4x extender than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS


Another advantage to going with the 200mm f/2.8 prime is that it's relatively inexpensive. In fact, you could buy that lens theCanon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro Lens ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx)for the samecost as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens (based on tonight's Amazon prices), and have a pair of lenses with absolutely top IQ and fast f/2.8 apertures, plus having a 100mm lens with true 1:1 macro capabilities and hybrid IS, which also doubles as a great portrait lens.

[Fast Glass]

I especially like shooting birds,


Then get the longest lens you can afford, period! I was just outside today with my camera (broken mind you) andstarring at some fancy ducks,the only way I could get some resonable shots was with my 600mm.


Here is another shot from some time ago.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/_5F00_MG_5F00_7747.TIF-reduced.JPG


John.

[bob williams]

you might consider the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM prime lens ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx). In his review, Bryan closes by stating, "If you simply want thebest image quality you can get at 200mm, the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens is for you


Thats an option I hadn't considered, Thanks

[bob williams]

I think the 70-200 2.8 L IS will complement your other lenses very well. You will find it especially useful for when the 100-400 L is not sufficiently fast, like indoors or before sunrise, for example.






Thanks Alex, you have made a strong argument in favor of the 70-200. I appreciate you and the others taking the time to respond.





Bob

[bob williams]

I suggest the 300 f/4. It has decent macro capabilities and twice as fast as your 100-400 from 300mm on. I have one (it's my only lens) and love it. It may not be a huge step up, heck you'd make money selling your 100-400 and buying the 300.








Thanks Brendan. Solid points to consider.

[Daniel Browning]

I have been saving for months to buy this lens, and now that I am in a position to do so, I am asking myself why.


Wise thinking. [Y]



I primarily shoot wildlife, some nature and landscapes and would like to do some macro.


If you're certain that the 200mm will be long enough, and you'll really use the extra stop, then it's a good idea. However, personally, I find that I don't use f/2.8 all that often for nature, landscapes, and macro. The 70-200 f/4 L IS suits me better for those types of shots because I'm stopped down anyway, and the I.S. gets me from 1/500 to 1/30.


Wildlife is one category where f/2.8 would definitely be useful (except when the DOF is just too ridiculously thin). But it's also the category where 200mm is not nearly long enough. I find that 400mm is barely adequate. But if you're confident that you can use 200mm without cropping then go for it.


I want to emphasize how important it is to *not crop* when using the 70-200 f/2.8. As soon as you start doing that, it would have been better to stick with the 100-400, even at f/5.6. For overall image quality and especially noise. For example, if you shoot 200mm f/2.8 ISO 100, then crop it to the same angle of view as 400mm f/5.6 ISO 400 -- the 200mm f/2.8 ISO 100 will have a lot more read noise ("shadow noise").


Hope that helps.

[bob williams]

I don't know if this helps you, but it's nice to know someone else knows your delemma





It definitely helps, and it is nice to know that someone else appreciates the dilemma----


Thanks Bill

[bob williams]

I want to emphasize how important it is to *not crop* when using the 70-200 f/2.8





I was thinking more of a general purpose/landscape lens when considering the 70-200. I do agree with you on the cropping issue. I used to try and crop to enlarge, needless to say, I wasn't happy with the results. Now I avoid any cropping unless it is for minor compositional adjustments.

[bob williams]

Daniel, one more thing---Congrats on your 1000+ posts. Like so many others have said, I have learned a great deal reading your comments. Thanks again,


Bob