My First L???

[MOF_Sydney]

Jayson,


I have both the 20-700 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. ( I also have the 24-105 f4 IS, that I think you should also consider.)


In terms of image quality there is nothing to pick between the f4 and the f2.8, but the 2.8IS is almost three times as expensive.


I use the 2.8 IS indoors (especially churches) where I do often need to go right down to 2.8 with high ISO. Outdoors the advantage of 2.8 is the shallow depth of field, but really the f4 will do just as well most of the time.


I use the 2.8 on professional jobs (when I'm carrying so much gear the extra weight is of no consequence) but I'll often take the f4 when I'm just out taking a camera with me.


In your case I really would suggest considering the 24-105 f4 L IS. This is my normal "walkaround lens" on the 5D when I'm just out with the camera, as distinct from working. It would be perfect for "kids in the yard" and on a crop factor camera quite reasonable, with a bit of cropping, for reasonably close sports like tennis.

[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.

[Don Burkett]

There are many reasons to consider the 70-200 f/2.8 but I am a happy f/4 owner.


In my book IS isn't even a question for greatest flexibility with either. I am an avid tripod user and still wouldn't consider any lens in the 200mm range without IS. Off tripod I just simply find it mandatory.

[greggf]

Great shot Don...what are the specs used to create this great shot?

[Keith B]

Cool shot.


That is a pretty tight DOF for 5.6.

[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]