18-200 IS f/3.5-5.6 *or* 70-200 L f/4 non-IS?

[mc95112]

Hi!


I'm new to this board. I'm a newbie, just got a 40D with the kit 28-135 lens. Got the 50mm f/1.8 a few weeks ago, and now looking to get something with longer reach.


I like the long range of the 18-200, but I know the 70-200 L f/4 is awesome.


What specifically is better about the 70-400 L? I would think the f/3.5 of the 18-200mm is "faster", right?


I'm basically taking pix of friends at softball games, and doing traveling: Hawaii, Europe...


Thanks in advance!


Mike

[Sean Setters]

Yes, the f/3.5 of the 18-200 is faster. However, as you zoom throughout the range of the lens, the maximum aperture becomes less and less until it's f/5.6 at 200mm. If you're taking pictures of softball players while they're on the field, you'll likely be using the lens at or close to 200mm, therefore, the f/4 would be a better choice.


And if you take into account the 70-200 f/4 is an "L" lens, with a build quality and image quality that truly fantastic, I'd say get it. The 18-200 is more of a jack-of-all-trades kind of lens (with IS), but I don't think it'll be the best choice for shooting a softball game especially.


Keep in mind, I don't have either of these two lenses, so my information is based solely on what I've read. However, I do own the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and I know it's a fantastic lens. The f/4 version is newer and said to be even better (which is hard for me to imagine).

[Daniel Browning]

What specifically is better about the 70-200 L?

Bryan's reviews for each of these lenses give a pretty clear idea of the ways in which the 70-200 f/4 non-IS is better. Here's the short version:

• Twice as much aperture at 200mm (f/4 vs f/5.6).
• Professional grade build
• No distortion.
• Less chromatic aberration.
• Somewhat better contrast.
• Somewhat higher resolution.
• Much less vignetting.
• Better focus and zoom rings.
• Faster Ring USM (vs slower Micro Motor).
• Full time manual focus.
• Better bokeh.

The big downsides are the focal length range and lack of I.S.

[mc95112]

Sean:


Thanks for your advice! Learning photography is humbling (but damn fun![] )


Another 2 questions:


1) I hear the "optics" of the L lens is better. What does that translate to, in the picture? For example, if I took the same picture at f/4 with the L vs. the 18-200 lens, would it look the same?


2) Would you be able to bring your 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens (or the 70-200 f/4 non-IS, in my case--I'm on a budget hehe) traveling, could it be an appropriate "walk-around" lens? Can I just step further away, to fit the picture in the 70mm setting?


Thanks much!!!


Mike

[Sean Setters]

1) The optics of the L lens are better for the reasons mentioned by the above poster (no distortion, better contrast, less vignetting, better bokeh, etc).


2) From what I've heard, the 70-200 f/4 is a pretty good walk-around lens. Keep in mind that the term "walk-around lens" means something different for just about everyone, but I would consider it a good travel lens. I've traveled with my 70-200 f/2.8, and I was always glad I did. The f/4 version is smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 and therefore even more suited to be a travel lens. And yes, if you want to fit more into the frame, simply take a few steps back. There are many times when this isn't possible (like trying to capture a wide open expanse from a single convenient spot...sometimes you can't get to a better spot).

[mc95112]

Thanks to both of you for all your help!


Mike

[Jeff Lucia]

Mike, I have owned the 70-200 f/4L (IS). I since upgraded to the 2.8. Since you have the kit lens, you're covering a lot of the wide range that the 18-200 would cover (not all, but a lot) and at similar quality. The biggest advantage you'll see from the 70-200 is its striking sharpness and color when you shoot it wide open. The 18-200 just won't do that.


There are all kinds of technical descriptors for image quality, but some lenses are capable of producing images of such immediately obvious quality that you just knowas soon as you see them....no description required. The 70-200 f/4L is one of those lenses.


Good luck!

[Benjamin]

the 18-200/3.5-5.6 is not a very competitive lens optically. Compromises such as sharpness, distortion, CA and slow speed have to be made when designing a lens that covers the entire range from 18mm to 200mm. The 18-200 lens is faster (only 1/3 stop anyway) at 18mm, however, I believe it will soon get to F5.6 when you zoom in. Maybe around or even before 135mm it's already a f5.6 lens. The 28-135 is a nice lens and it has full frame coverage, it's better optically comparing to the 18-200. Why give this lens up? The 70-200L is a fantastic lens, I have a 70-200/4L IS and I cannot be happier with it. You will also find that the 70-200/4L is better than the 18-200 in every way but the coverage. So for almost the same price it is clear IMO to go for the 70-200/4L if you need a telescope[]

[mc95112]

Hi guys!


Great explanations!!! 70-200L it is! Besides the optical advantages, the white barrel also just "looks" cool and "professional" [] Another side question, when they say the IS version has "several more stops", I thought both IS and non-IS f/4 had a max f/4 aperture? Or, did I misunderstand?


Thanks again!!


Mike

[Daniel Browning]

Another side question, when they say the IS version has "several more stops", I thought both IS and non-IS f/4 had a max f/4 aperture? Or, did I misunderstand?

You understood correctly: they both have the same f-number. When people say "several more stops", they are referring to the fact that you can handhold the IS version at a shutter speed that is sixteen times slower: 1/20 instead of 1/320; or 1/40 instead of 1/640 (if you're not very steady). But if you need fast shutter speeds to stop action anyway, then the IS has no advantage.