Printable View
Hi guys! just want to ask for suggestions / opinions on what to get between...
A. 70-200 f4 IS
B. 70-200 f2.8 IS mark I
C. 70-200 f2.8 IS mark II
Any of the three lenses will be my first telephoto lens and will use it to complement my 24-105 f4 IS. Its not between f2.8 vs f4 but what would be the best value for the money.All your suggestions / opinions will definitely help me to choose what to get.Thank you very much!
That's easy. The best value for the money isn't on your list....it's the 70-200mm f/4 L non-IS. :-)
Totally! Best value you can get for such a budget!
if you can afford the 70-200 2.8 IS markII, seems that is "one to have" in this range. For budget, 70-200 F4 non IS (but this won't be good for low light situations).
See if your current F4 lens is good enough for your uses in terms of available light and background blur quality and if that's sufficient, then you may have your answer.
if you plan on doing mostly outdoor photography/hiking/travel, the f/4 lens will save some wt in your backpack. the IS will get you an extra stop or two, so to speak.
if indoor work where flash isn't allowed (sports at the local gym) is your passion, i'd lean towards the faster but heavier glass.
either way, you'll have a white lens with that coveted red L ring on it! let us know what you choose and why. thanks. erno.
Thank you for all the replies. Actually I think having an IS in this focal range is important that's why I didn't include the f4 non-IS version on the choices. The f2.8 IS Mk II I think is really a good choice but the high price tag keeps me thinking if it is worth it. Read a lot of good things about the f4 IS and leaning towards it.Do you guys think that is it sharper than the f2.8 IS Mk I and on par with the f2.8 IS Mk II image quality wise?
I think the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mk II is in a whole new league of quality compared to the Mk I. But, as you've already identified there's a hefty price to pay for that quality (as is always the case). I'd imagine, though, that it would last you a VERY long time.
I personally use the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the image quality is simply outstanding and the IS is excellent. I don't suffer too much by losing the extra stop of light over the 2.8 as with the 5D MkII I can crank up the ISO without degrading picture quality too much.
There's a huge difference in size, weight and price between the f/4 and f/2.8 versions and I'm glad I've got the f/4 for those reasons. My camera bag is already heavy as hell carrying just the body, 24-70mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 580 exII and a couple of other accessories.
Ben
Hi Ben! Thanks for the reply. How do you find the 70-200 f4 IS on the 5D mark II? I have the same body and thinking that I could crank up the ISO in low light situation. Is image quality still sharp? As you've said the weight and the price of the f2.8 Mk II are the thinghs I'm considering as well.
It's a joy to use on the 5D MKII. IQ is spot on and I've got plenty of wedding shots in low light venues at ISO1600 and higher that come out looking like my 40D did at ISO 200.
The 24-70mm f/2.8 is strapped on most of the time but when I get the chance to use the 70-200 I'm still stoked with every shot.
Can you post something taken with the 70-200 f4 IS with the 5D Mark II if you don't mind? At the moment, I'm leaning towards the f4 IS and thinking as well if going to upgrade my 24-105 with the 24-70.
No worries - I'll see what I can dig up.
Ok here's an example for you. It's not a show stopping shot but is probably a good example of the detail you can achieve with this combo in lowish light.
Shot with 5D MkII, ISO 800, 1/320sec. 70-200mm f/4L IS @ 200mm and f/4.
Here's the original:
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/Bridge-WEB.jpg[/img]
100% Crop at 800 pix wide:
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/100_2500_-Crop-native.jpg[/img]
100% Crop + Smart sharpen filter @ 100% and 3 pixels radius
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/100_2500_-Crop-native-sharp-100pc-pt3-pix.jpg[/img]
100% Crop + Smart sharpen filter @ 100% and 3 pixels radius + Noise Reduction @ Strength = 5, Preserve Details = 0, Reduce Colour Noise = 50%, Sharpen Details = 0
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/100_2500_-Crop-native-sharp-100pc-pt3-pix-with-NR.jpg[/img]
So it's pretty incredible if you ask me. You think about a full size print of this image and what distance you might stand back from it to look at it, even without any changes it's bloody good.
Hope this has helped.
Cheers, Ben.
BTW that was done with ACR and Photoshop CS4. I don't use DPP but I'll see if it's a better result as well.
thank you very much ben! i really appreciate it. the 70-200 f4 IS might be the right & ideal one to get. thanks again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
My camera bag weighs 50lbs! Now thats heavy.
John.
If you can swing it, without going into debt,I don't think you'd regret getting a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM.
Yeah don't get me wrong, if I could justify it I'd get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mk II in a heartbeat. But for the amount I use that focal length it's not going to happen for me. I like my f/4, does a good job for me.
John, maybe I need to take a teaspoon of cement and harden up [:P] 50lbs! I didn't realise we had Sylvester Stallone on the forums [:D] I'm assuming 49.7lbs of that is made up of that enormous 1 billion mm lens of yours.
Well, OK so mabye my camera bag weighs about 5 lbs. And that's also with another case for my600, about 3lbsBut thats still 42lbs of gear. Butif I want to take all my gear that's what I need to carry.My Minolta 600mm weighs about 5.2lbs, about whatthe 300mm f/2.8. It's about the same diameter but longer than the 300.
Yeah, I think I need to thin down my lens colection.[:P]
John.
actually i've taken out the f2.8 IS Mark I in the picture because like what btaylor have said the f2.8 IS Mark II is in a new different league image quality wise compared to the Mark I. so, deciding between the f4 IS or f2.8 IS Mark II. If I could justify the price of the f2.8 IS Mark II, i might be tempted to get that.
I have theEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM - it truly is an amazing lens! According to Bryan's review, it's a tiny bit sharper than the f/4L IS version - but I really don't think you'd ever notice that in real-world shooting. So, it really comes down to a trade-off in cost/size/weight vs. aperture.
One other thing to consider - will you use it with a teleconverter? If so, the 70-200mm f/2.8 II + 1.4x extender becomes a 98-280mm f/4 thatdelivers surprisingly sharp images,whereas the f/4 lens goes to f/5.6 and suffers more of an IQ hit than the f/2.8 II. Although I wouldn't ever really recommend a 2x extender, the f/2.8 II isn't too bad with one of those, whereas you'd be at f/8 with 2x + the f/4 zoom, meaning no AF on anything but a 1-series body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr
I can't tell you if you can "justify" it :), but I think the pros and cons are pretty clear
Cons: weight, price
Pros: work in half as much light, narrower DOF/increased background blur. (There are also af advantages to f/2.8, but IMO that is a minor issue).
I think it depends heavily on what you shoot (and how easily you can part with the money, of course).
I use the f/2.8 II on the 5DII, and I really like the narrow DOF for portraits. On the 5DII, it is equivalent to about 45-125 f/1.75 on a crop body, so you're getting the speed and IQ of a prime used on an APS-C with the versatility of a zoom in a range that is- at least for me- ideal for portraits.
On the other hand, full frame f/4 is already very usable and it is much cheaper, and you're giving up little to nothing up in terms of IQ. If you're shooting in good light and don't need the narrow DOF, f/4 may be the way to go.
thanks guys! all of these will reallyhelp me to decide which 70-200 to get. I would say I can't go wrong eitherof the two ( f4 IS or f2.8 IS mark II). thanks again!
hi again guys! last question...get the24-70(upgrade from 24-105)& 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f2.8 IS Mark II?Basically, I just want to have atleast 1 fast lens and just realized that the price of 70-200 f2.8 IS Mark II in my placeis the same with the 24-70 + 70-200 f4 IS.What is the best way to go? Thanks guys!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr
I guess that comes down to 1) which focal length range you'd get the most from f/2.8 and 2) whether you find IS to be a benefit on the 24-105mm f/4L.
On FF, the 70-200mm range is very nice for portraits - so if you do a fair bit of that, you'll benefit from f/2.8 there. The 24-70mm is more of an event shooting lens.
I'd say the f4 non is is the best value, but prefer the is version for more keepers and sharper images.
For indoor sports or in low light, it will not do the job. Even f2.8 is often not fast enough when you get moving subjects in low light and need high shutter speeds. For those cases, I use fast primes.
took the plunge...went for the 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM...amazing lens! super sharp and very fast AF. worth the price and even the weight. thank you guys for all the suggestions and opinion. thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr
Congrats! Enjoy your new purchase - it's truly an amazing lens!
Have fun and enjoy it!
Enjoy the lens! Post some pics when you process them!