My First L???

[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.[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/0563-_5B00_800x600_5D00_.jpg[/img]

[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.

[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



Water on some clover


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

[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.

[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).




















-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?[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/_2D00_0237-_5B00_800x600_5D00_.jpg[/img]

[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 . 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.