My First L???

[Jayson]

I have been looking into getting my first "L" lens. I am planning on using the lens to photo my kids in the yard, possibly some tennis stuff this summer,and maybe using it forscenery photos. I am on a limited budget. But hoping that changes with some projects in the near future.I have three lenses in mind at this time and looking for input.


The three are 70-200L f/4 w/o IS, the 70-200 L f/2.8 w/o IS, or the 70-200L f/4 w/ IS.


The way I understand it, IS is for subjects that don't move or move very little and doesn't really help with moving subjects. Please correct me if I am wrong. I readthe review and it appears that the f/4 lenses and the f/2.8 are very comparable in IQ. So, my big question would be...am I better served purchasing the f/4 w/o IS and buying some other good quality lens for portrait stuff, or should Ijust buck up and get either the f/4 w/ IS or the f/2.8?


Please help!!!!

[David Selby]

The 2.8 is what I own. IS is for hand holding the lens at slower shutter speeds, but as you said does nothing to correct subject movement.





2.8 lets in twice as much light as F4.0. This means your shutter speed will be twice as fast, which can mean the difference between capturing action or not.





if you intend to shoot sports, indoors or out, I would advise looking at the faster glass 2.8 it will allow you to achieve higher shutter speeds. thats really what it comes down to, your intended usage.

[GSPhoto]

Since you are going to do mostly outdoors the 2.8 might not be worth the extra. I have the 2.8 with IS and I love it but, I do a lot of indoor and


outdoor shooting. The IS is amazing on the 2.8 which I would imagine same on f/4. It also has a second IS option that you use when panning, such as when your kids are running or tennis players moving very fast. I might suggest the F/4 with IS. Hope this helps.

[EdN]

I have both the 70-200 F4 and 70-200 F4 IS. The non IS was my first L lens and it's quite spectacular in outdoor stuff. I got the IS version as I also like to do low light work and it's also great. If you can afford it, the IS gives you more flexibility for low light shooting. I don't have the 2.8 but I believe it is about the same size as the 300 F4L. That's also a nice lens but it's big and not fun to pack that around all day and if you want to be discrete taking pictures, it's a conspicuously large lens to point around.

[Tony Printezis]

The IS is amazing on the 2.8 which I would imagine same on f/4.


The IS on the f4 is in fact a bit better (3rd generation, 4-stop). The f2.8 has a 2nd generation, 3-stop IS. The f4 is considered a bit sharper too. Also keep in mind that the f4 is half the weight of the f2.8, so it's easier to carry around.


Tony

[Joel Bookhammer]

Hey Jayson I own the 70-200 2.8 IS and love it, I though it was alittle heavy at first but you get used to it very quickly after seeing the results in lower light, Im currently shooting with a 40Dwith the battery grip and can shoot a full day with ease knowing the results I will be getting.So if I was choosing between the f/4 w/o or the f/4 with IS, I would choose the f/4 with the image stabilizer. My theory is its better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. This is all just my opinion all of your lens choices are excellent choices so whichever you choose I think you will really enjoy it.


joel

[MVers]

For kids and sports (Tennis) f/2.8 without a doubt.

[Jayson]

Thank you all for your advise. This is going to be a tough choice.

[greggf]

Hey Jayson...here's my 2 cents, along with everybody else's. I currently own the f4 IS and it is a stellar lens, and I do mean stellar. Granted it is a stop slower than the 2.8, but it weighs half as much(the f4 IS weighs less than my 28-70L), has fantastic IS, is sharp, and I mean sharp wide open, corner to corner. It might not be the best sports lens, but here is an example of my dog Rajah, chasing the ball and jumping....but this lens does everything else right, too. this pic taken with 5D ll, 70-200 f4IS, iso 400, 200mm, 5.6@1/2500. Your choice, but you really can't go wrong with either./cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/Rajah-jumping_2D00_0850-_5B00_800x600_5D00_.jpg

[Keith B]

Well if it's in the budget, go with the 2.8L IS. You will never have to second guess yourself.


I'd almost recommend a different lens though, probably the 24-105L 4.0 IS. I think you'll find 70-200 Is pretty tight for photographing the active kids. At least consider for your second L.

[MOF_Sydney]

Jayson,


I have both the 20-700 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. ( I also have the 24-105 f4 IS, that I think you should also consider.)


In terms of image quality there is nothing to pick between the f4 and the f2.8, but the 2.8IS is almost three times as expensive.


I use the 2.8 IS indoors (especially churches) where I do often need to go right down to 2.8 with high ISO. Outdoors the advantage of 2.8 is the shallow depth of field, but really the f4 will do just as well most of the time.


I use the 2.8 on professional jobs (when I'm carrying so much gear the extra weight is of no consequence) but I'll often take the f4 when I'm just out taking a camera with me.


In your case I really would suggest considering the 24-105 f4 L IS. This is my normal "walkaround lens" on the 5D when I'm just out with the camera, as distinct from working. It would be perfect for "kids in the yard" and on a crop factor camera quite reasonable, with a bit of cropping, for reasonably close sports like tennis.

[Alex Bishton]

If sports shots and portraits are what you want to shoot then the 70-200 f4 L is probably the way to go. I have used this lens and as previous posters have said, it is a phenomenal lens. Probably the best value L lens there is.
Personally, I shoot landscapes so this lens isn't the best for me. As I have a 1.6x body (a 40D) I think the best landscape/walk-around lens has got to be the 17-40 f4 L, just for value alone. It's about half the price of a 24-70 f2.8 L, much smaller and lighter, and on a 1.6x body, the range is roughly 27 - 64 which is comparable to the 24-70 on a full frame body.

[MVers]

If sports shots and portraits are what you want to shoot then the 70-200 f4 L is probably the way to go.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





The 70-200/4 is a great lens for the money, but it's hardly a sports or portrait lens. In fact the f/2.8 would perform better in both regards. The f/2.8 aperture is vital when it comes to stopping action and the bokeh for portraiture is much smoother.


Also, if you don't plan to 'upgrade' to FF in the near future I can recommend the 17-55IS as a general purpose lens as well--it will perform much better than the 24-105 would, specifically for kids and action. f/2.8&gt;f/4. If you do, however, have a plan to go FF the 24-70 would be another great option, though 24mm on a crop body isn't really ideal, at least IMO.

[greggf]

I have to disagree with MVers about the 70-200 f4IS not being a portrait lens. Sure it doesn't have the bokeh at 2.8....but at f4, there is still a lot, plus it's lighter, half the cost(almost, unless you get non-IS), and the 4-stop IS makes up for the f2.8 for handholdability if you have a still subject. And the f4 is a lot sharper, both versions, than the 2.8's. You can still use it for sports if you want, hell, people use the 100-400 for sports. My pic above of my dog chasing the ball is TACK sharp at 200mm@5.6. Save the money from the 2.8, and get yourself a 85 1.8 or 100 f2 for portraits, and you'll be happier with the bokeh, although, like I said, the f4 has great bokeh...here is a pic taken of my little guy sitting inhis Red Rider Wagon(iso 100, 160mm, f4@1/640) from about 10-11 ft away. I think it has great bokeh./cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/0563-_5B00_800x600_5D00_.jpg

[Keith B]

I use to use the my 70-200L 4.0 for portraiture with good results.


I sold it when I got my 5D2 and 24-105 Kit. With my 100-400 I had the range filled.


I plan to get the 70-200 2.8L IS someday soon.

[Don Burkett]

There are many reasons to consider the 70-200 f/2.8 but I am a happy f/4 owner.


In my book IS isn't even a question for greatest flexibility with either. I am an avid tripod user and still wouldn't consider any lens in the 200mm range without IS. Off tripod I just simply find it mandatory.


http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/101271231/original.jpg

[greggf]

Great shot Don...what are the specs used to create this great shot?

[Keith B]

Cool shot.


That is a pretty tight DOF for 5.6.

[MVers]

I have to disagree with MVers about the 70-200 f4IS not being a portrait lens. Sure it doesn't have the bokeh at 2.8....but at f4, there is still a lot, plus it's lighter, half the cost(almost, unless you get non-IS), and the 4-stop IS makes up for the f2.8 for handholdability if you have a still subject. And the f4 is a lot sharper, both versions, than the 2.8's. You can still use it for sports if you want, hell, people use the 100-400 for sports. My pic above of my dog chasing the ball is TACK sharp at 200mm@5.6. Save the money from the 2.8, and get yourself a 85 1.8 or 100 f2 for portraits, and you'll be happier with the bokeh, although, like I said, the f4 has great bokeh...here is a pic taken of my little guy sitting inhis Red Rider Wagon(iso 100, 160mm, f4@1/640) from about 10-11 ft away. I think it has great bokeh.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Hey, Gregg. While the f/4 versions are nice (smaller, lighter, cheaper, IS version is sharper) the 2.8's are much faster, generate much better bokeh and are definitely no slouches when it comes to sharpness. IMO, and no offense, the image you posted does not represent great bokeh--Bokeh is a very subjective thing, and my definition obviously differs from yours. In good light the f/4 versions perform well, its in lower light the f/2.8 shines. Since the OP is shooting children and tennis there is no doubt in my mind the f/2.8 is the way to go. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the versatility of an f/2.8 zoom than an f/4 zoom, regardless of the weight and marginal/negligible sharpness differences. Here are a few shots with the f/2.8IS which couldn't have been made with the f/4 versions (in terms of bokeh quality).


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2311/2216891335_a2a5fea124.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2390/2226380829_d35e5b9eab.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/2216984399_e474247b43_b.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2654314076_65aa014474_b.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2654314100_de4396b774_b.jpg





-Matt

[greggf]

Hey Matt...those are all great shots. Love the shot of the little boy in the end. I agree that bokeh is subjective, and maybe the first example wasn't the best,so lets try another. And I'm not saying that the 2.8 isn't worth it; but the OP stated that he was on a "limited" budget. On that statement alone he is probably saying that he can't afford the 2.8. So I said get a f4 w/or w out Is, and with the money saved, buy a portrait lens( and even the venerable 70-200 2.8IS can't compete bokeh wise with 85 1.8 or 100 f2) for $300. I think this bokeh compares with yur dog shot or even the little boy shot, no?/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/_2D00_0237-_5B00_800x600_5D00_.jpg

[Don Burkett]

Great shot Don...what are the specs used to create this great shot?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Thanks


Canon 40D, 70-200 f/4 @ 200mm f/5.6, 1/2000 ISO 640 AP -1 handheld. Don't remember the distance but I was some what near the outside rail and he was on the inside rail so not very far. A little was cropped from the front, wish I'd grabbed more of the flying dirt at the back.

[Jayson]

Wow! Great shots everyone. I really appreciate the input. This is going to be one heck of a choice. Both lenses have very high positives with little negatives.

[MVers]

Hey Matt...those are all great shots. Love the shot of the little boy in the end. I agree that bokeh is subjective, and maybe the first example wasn't the best,so lets try another. And I'm not saying that the 2.8 isn't worth it; but the OP stated that he was on a "limited" budget. On that statement alone he is probably saying that he can't afford the 2.8. So I said get a f4 w/or w out Is, and with the money saved, buy a portrait lens( and even the venerable 70-200 2.8IS can't compete bokeh wise with 85 1.8 or 100 f2) for $300. I think this bokeh compares with yur dog shot or even the little boy shot, no?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Hey, Gregg. I know where you're coming from concerning the budget part--no one said photography was cheap :D. Anyhow, that's up to the OP to decide and since he listed the f/2.8 initially it is the best choice, IMO. I respect that you love your f/4 version, but if you had the funds to do it all over wouldn't you rather have gone with the more versatile f/2.8? The second sample you posted represents much nicer bokeh than the first, I would call it great. BUT it cannot do it as consistently as the f/2.8. As I'm sure you're aware bokeh depends on a few factors--aperture, FL (focal length), FD-S (focal distance to subject), and distance from subject to background. So say we shot the same subject (your son?) you posted the first time around at the same distance etc etc, you with the f/4 and I with the f/2.8. The lens to generate the better bokeh is a no brainer. That was the point of me posting the samples, if done so with the f/4 version I would have gotten considerably different results. I'm not one to say any certain lens cannot generate great bokeh, but I will say there are lenses that can do so more consistently and reliably. As for competing against a prime like the 85/100...no the 70-200 cannot compete with the 85/1.8 at 85/2.8 or the 100/2 at 100/2.8 BUT the 85/1.8 and 100//2 cannot compete with the 70-200 at any other FL. This is where versatility steps in, and with children and sports its an important factor. Don't get me wrong, the 85/1.8 and its older brother are great lenses (I own the 85) but I wouldn't be without my 70-200/2.8IS for its outstanding versatility and performance. In the end, anyway you cut it, the OP can't really go wrong with which lens he decides to go with--they are all great in their own respects.

[Jon Ruyle]

Just one more opinion...


I have the f/2.8 IS. For tennis or kids in the yard, I would rather give up the IS than the stop. I like the background blur of the f/2.8, and f/2.8 is better for stopping action. Plus if you are shooting during the day, there is usually plenty of light outside without IS.


On the other hand, if you want to take shots at twilight, you might consider IS. Some say IS is useless for kids because they move around so much, and they do. But they also stay still a lot, and I've gotten good pictures of kids with IS and very low shutter speeds. And if you are shooting tight portraits (head &amp; shoulders) of children, you might want to stop down to at least f/4 anyway (DOF is reduced for cluseups, and if you are taking a picture of a childs head at f/2.8, your dof is tiny... you probably won't get both eyes in focus).


Bottom line: f/2.8 IS gives most versatility. If pressed to choose between IS and f/2.8, I would pick IS for shooting tight portraits in low light, but go with f/2.8 for tennis or general backyard kid pictures.


Not an easy decision. FWIW, I had the f/4 non-IS and loved it, too.


Some have suggested the 24-105 f/4 IS. I have this lens also. I agree that it is a better "all around" choice (if I'm going somewhere where I don't know what to expect, I take this lens). The IS plus wide angle means low shutter speeds, so it is a fantastic very low light lens (for still subjects). And I would definitely prefer 24-105 for scenery photos (where probably want to go wider than 70mm and usually stop down anyway). But for kids in the yard or tennis, I recommend the longer lens.


Hope this helps-


Jon.

[KurtK]

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana;"]Have you considered the - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens? I know it is not quite the focal range you seem to be looking for, but it is a great first L lens.<o:p></o:p>

[Snap]

I'm a rookie to photography and just starting to build my kit. The lens recommendations on this site for different purposes, combined with the reviews, have been a gold mine of information. I currently have one lens, the 24-105mm f/4 IS, and I love it.


I'm now looking for a longer zoom and will probably pick up the 70-200mm. However, I'm facing the same difficulty choosing between the f/4 and f/2.8. On the one hand, lighter, less expensive package, better optics on the f/4; superior action stopping and low light performance on the f/2.8 but heavier and more expensive.


The thing that's tilting my decision more and more towards the f/4 IS is that both the IS and non-IS versions of the f/2.8 are much older lenses (f/2.8 IS 7-and-a-half years; f/2.8 14-years; f/4 IS 2-and-a-quarter years; f/4 10-and-a-half years). This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm concerned that Canon might be updating the f/2.8 IS in the near term with a version II. Possible improvements could include third generation 4-stop IS and re-working of the optics to be on par with the f4. The last thing I want happening is to buy the f/2.8 IS, then have Canon come up with a better version in 12-months.


The 24-70 f/2.8 is very well regarded as well and I need a low-light general purpose lens. But I'm holding off buying the 24-70 for the same reason -- age (6-and-a-quarter years). The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS was introduced just under 3-years ago, and it would seem logical that this "L" would have IS added pretty soon in a version II.


Am I reading too much into the age of the lenses, or should I just go and get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS or 24-70 f/2.8?

[Jon Ruyle]

My take, and perhaps others who know more will correct me:


I think you are indeed reading too much into lens age.


Optical designs don't age nearly as fast as electronics. These are all modern lenses. Canon updates camera bodies regularly, but I wouldn't hold my breath for an update on a lens.


IMO, weight and cost are much more important factors in this decision than age and image quality.


As for a good general purpose low-light lens, for still subjects I suggest you consider the 24-105 f/4 IS. The IS makes it hand-holdable in lower light than the 24-70, and the longer focal length makes it (IMO) just as good a portrait lens (very subjective, I admit). Of course, if you plan to take pictures of rapidly moving things, the extra stop trumps IS.


Best of luck-


Jon.

[unjx]

I toatlly agree with Alex on both lens opinions.


I have both a 70-200 f/4L and a 17-40 f/4L and find them a perfect match outside. I also disagree with MOF_Sydney regarding the 70-200 for portraits. I absolutley love my 70-200 for portraits and the bokeh at 200mm is pretty much as creamy as it gets.


The 17-40 is great for landscape photography. I also use it for a walk-about lens, decent for a quick portrait at 40mm, great indoors if light is good (but works great with a 580 flash).


I bought the f/4 set at the time because of money, but if you can afford to buy a wider aperture that would be ideal.


Gregg: those are great shots! Thanks for posting


Photos:


Peregrine Falcon Portrait


Lens: EF70-200mm f/4L USM)
1/800 f/4.0, ISO800 @ 200mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/3219852990_4a0cd4c781.jpg


Water on some clover


Lens: EF17-40mm f/4L USM
1/60 f/5.6, ISO 200 @ 40mm


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3011/3070439769_2732539722.jpg

[Jayson]

I appreciate all of the advice I received on this subject. I looked at the options out there and the pricing and found a 70-200 f4 IS new for about $970. I just couldn't break the $1000 mark just yet. In looking for the lens, I just couldn't see getting the non-IS version for only $250 to $300 less. I think the IS will well make up that difference to me in future pictures. I chose the f4 over the f2.8 for two reasons 1) I found it for under $1000 and seemingly from a reputable dealer. Hopefully that is the case when it arrives here Thursday. 2) I decided that at this point in time I will not have a whole lot of indoor shooting without lighting assistance, so I think the f4 should do the trick. The f2.8 was very tempting, but I believe in IS and I know it has saved many of my shots on previous lenses. Once the lens arrives and this darn snow melts, I will try to post some shots for critique. Thanks everyone again for their input.

[micdon]

Hey Joel or anyone else out there, I too have just picked up this lens and I have been reading about the 1.4 extender, has anyone with this same lens have good or bad experience with using the extender?


let me know


mike