what to get?

[cxr]

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!

[Sean Setters]

That's easy. The best value for the money isn't on your list....it's the 70-200mm f/4 L non-IS. :-)

[Sheiky]

Totally! Best value you can get for such a budget!

[Cozen]

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.

[erno james]

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.

[cxr]

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?

[btaylor]

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

[cxr]

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.

[btaylor]

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.

[Fast Glass]

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.

My camera bag weighs 50lbs! Now thats heavy.


John.