Canon EF70-200mm F/4L non IS or IS

[Sheiky]

Alright, let's do another approach. Put your 18-200 to 70-200 range and start photographing without the IS turned on. Shoot at f5.6 and compensate for that 1 stop of light you would get with the 70-200 F4L. This will tell you if you're comfortable shooting without IS.


For sports I'm in no doubt that you will enjoy the non-Is version, but I can't tell you if you'd miss the IS for other purposes.


My safest bet would be to buy the 70-200 F4L, save some money(perhaps earn some with your shots) and save it for a better general purpose lens like the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS USM or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or others.


You're gonna want a better general lens eventually, I can promise you that, because after seeing footage of an L-lens your 18-200 will look..."not that great" anymore [:P]

[this_gurl]

Good suggestion.


Looking at your reccomendation of getting a general purpose lens I do like that idea. My original plan was to have the camera for a year, save up, and drop some money on a nice lens inDecember/Janurary (kind of doa birthday/christmas gift for myself similar as I did with my first purchase!) Maybe I could get one of your suggestions, or even still the ER70-200mm F/4L (IS or NON) but for now since I am getting the most enjoyment out of taking photos of people, I think I am going to change direction for the time, spend a bit less, and look into a better portrait lens such as the 85mm 1.8

[my palliser]

I really like your efforts it is highly appertained

[this_gurl]

With the 85mm 1.8 I understand it will take great face/head closeup shots, but the people who I have asking for photos are primarily families, so I would need something able to capture a group of people (like a family of 4, or mother daughter that kind of thing) any suggestios for that, or could I use the 85mm 1.8 from further back and still get a better image than with what I currently have>? Where I get my fun is from the close ups, but if I want to take pictures for people I am going to have to be more flexible.

[Sheiky]

Hey again!

My original plan was to have the camera for a year, save up, and drop some money on a nice lens inDecember/Janurary (kind of doa birthday/christmas gift for myself similar as I did with my first purchase!)

If you asked me how I would be looking in 2 years(photographing development) at the time I was buying my first DSLR, I could have never guessed it would turned out the way it did [:P]

Maybe I could get one of your suggestions, or even still the ER70-200mm F/4L (IS or NON) but for now since I am getting the most enjoyment out of taking photos of people, I think I am going to change direction for the time, spend a bit less, and look into a better portrait lens such as the 85mm 1.8

It's not such an easy choice as you had imagined right? [:P] I too think it's a hard decision, since I'm aware of my own style, but I have no real clue what you like. I personally think a solid basis (read: body with a decent general purpose lens) is something I need. My photography subjects are very various and that explains the solid base.



<div>

With the 85mm 1.8 I understand it will take great face/head closeup shots, but the people who I have asking for photos are primarily families, so I would need something able to capture a group of people (like a family of 4, or mother daughter that kind of thing) any suggestios for that, or could I use the 85mm 1.8 from further back and still get a better image than with what I currently have&gt;? Where I get my fun is from the close ups, but if I want to take pictures for people I am going to have to be more flexible.

There are 2 things I'd like to say here. I must say that the Canon 70-200 F4L is very usable at f4!


For groups of 4 people and close-ups the 70-200 will be great I think. With larger groups you can't shoot at real wide apertures because your focus plane will set one person perfectly sharp and the other 3 out of focus. f4 could be used very well in these kind of shots. It doesn't really matter what lens you use. Of course for larger groups you will likely use the 70mm side of the lens. Of course you'll need to watch out a little bit more for a good background. Make sure you've got some empty space behind your subjects.


200mm will be perfect for close-ups and single person head-shoulder portraits. Plus it can also be used for sports very well.


Second thing to mention is that 200mm gives you a stealthy look. You can take close-ups of people without them even noticing.


Only downside to the 70-200 is that it's white/grey. It gets a lot of attention. Not necessarily bad, but some people could get a bit shy. But if your photographing friends etc this likely won't be a problem.


A plus: with sportsphotography it isn't hard to earn a little pocketmoney.(I've never done it, since I have different thoughts about asking money, but I'm just saying []) Especially sports with horses are the places to be when you want to make some money...just a tip [:P]





About the 85mm 1.8: it makes a perfect portraiture lens. However it lacks the ability to zoom. You can't go from a group shot to a close-up in an instance. For group shots f1.8 is way too wide. You probably won't have everyone in focus. So you end up pushing up your aperture to at least f2.8-f4. For head-shoulder portraits it's great though. It is a great lens, but I doubt it's the best solution for you.


I'm not making it much easier am I?


Well I'll post a few snapshots of portraits with the 70-200 and you'll figure out if you like the idea or not [] Don't mind the composition please, these are old [A]





200mm f4 1/1000 ISO500 - These guys stand like 1m/3ft away from each other





150mm f4 1/2500 ISO400 - There's a lot of free space behind them and you'll see it's blurred very nicely.





200mm f5 1/500 ISO100 - Enough free background space lets you make quite a good head-shoulder shot.





200mm f4 1/640 ISO400 - In this case there's no more than 3m/10ft until the first tree/branch. It's made in a quite dense forest.



</div>


73mm f7.1 1/500 ISO200 - With group shots you don't necessary need to blur away the background, unless it's to disturbing.


Hope these shots give you an idea of the portraiture potential of this lens. I've never had or used the 85mm 1.8 so I can't show you anything from it...


I must honestly say that I also had the 50mm 1.8 once, but I felt the focal length wasn't right for me and the lack of build and sharpness weren't really good either. Oh to find out if the 85mm is good for you. Set your lens to about 85mm and try it yourself!



<div>

I really like your efforts it is highly appertained

<div>I honestly have no idea what appertained means...I'm sorry my English ain't that good [8-|]</div>
<div>Hope I helped you out a bit, I'm going to sleep now []</div>
<div>-Jan</div>
</div>

[clemmb]

<div>

I really like your efforts it is highly appertained
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

</div>



<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I am from Texas and I did not know what the meaning of this word was either. It is not a word we in the US use often.


Mark

[thekingb]

Go for IS...if you can afford it, and you shoot without a tripod most of the time. The IS on this lens works incredibly well. At 200mm on a crop body, even with great light you're better off with the IS.


You should also know that the f/4 pretty much limits this lens to outdoor, daytime uses. But the 2.8 is so much heavier and more expensive anyway....





I'll attach a pic of a flamingo at the zoo, handheld at 183mm.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.45.77/flamingo.jpg[/img]

[DavidEccleston]

I am from Texas and I did not know what the meaning of this word was either. It is not a word we in the US use often.

I'm born British, living in Canada, and I assumed it was a typo of some sort. I'd never heard the word before today. I checked online, and it does appear to be in *some* of the online dictionaries.


As long as you keep in mind that nobody will have any idea what you're talking about, feel free to continue using it. []

[ddt0725]

I'd never heard the word before today. I checked online, and it does appear to be in *some* of the online dictionaries.

I had to go look it up also but even the definitiions I found, I did not understand ...I hate when you need a dictionary to understand the definition of words in the dictionary!

[Brendan7]

I'd go for the IS version, hands down. Here's the effect of IS (taken with my 70-200 f4 IS lens, both at 200mm, 1/30 sec)


Without IS With IS


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/400x300/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.36.40/IMG_5F00_8152.JPG[/img][img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/400x300/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.36.40/IMG_5F00_8154.JPG[/img]


The effect of IS is I really don't have to worry about stabilizing my camera. That along with weather sealing gives you that "I don't have to worry about my lens, I can concentrate on what I'm shooting" feeling. [Y]


The IS version is also sharper and Weather-sealed (that was the reason I bought it instead of the non IS). Here are my two favorite photos from this lens:













I do have portrait shots with this lens but the subjects would not like me to post their pictures here. [N] And it IS (no pun intended) a fine portraiture lens, it just won't give you those stunning thin DoF portraits. They're not bad at all, though. It's not a specialist lens: It's good at macro, portraits, sports, and long landscapes, but it's not specialized for any of those tasks. That doesn't mean it doesn't do them well, efficiently, and relatively cheaply, though. In summary a great lens.


Good Luck!


brendan