Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Canon 70-200's ?

profile picture
marc_vertesi
Posts: 84 - Karma: 294
So, i'm asking that question here on NS because I feel that people are more close to what I'm doing, which is shoot snow, skiing and others.

I've got a 7D for quite a while now, bought à Tamron 17-50 and a tokina 11-16, which I'm really happy with. When I bought it, I got the 18-135 which I know isn't the best zoom lens out there but I just wanted something to begin, plus I didn't pay extra (would have gotten the body for the same price with or without it). Anyways, I've came to the point where I really see the weakness of this lens, and I'm tired of using it.

I searched a bit on the interwebz, and came to the conclusion that I probably wanted a 70-200 because of the fixed aperture and the nice zoom range. But there are many 70-200 models (IS, non IS, USM, f/4, f/2.8 etc) and I'm a bit confused. I can't decide, of course I would love to buy the f/2.8 II, but it's so expensive and I can't really afford it now.

So basically, I wanted to ask you about your personal experiences with any of those lenses, the + and - of any type etc. Everything you know about it. I really need to make a choice, but I'm pretty limited because of the money. And if you got any other alternative, an other lens. I'm really looking for something sharp, with nice contrasts and it must have a fixed aperture. Weight and color (yeah we never know) doesn't matter to me! What would you recommend me?

Hope you understood what I'm trying to say! Thanks in advance
Mar 21 2011 1:56PM
0 0
profile picture
Brentizzle
Posts: 1584 - Karma: 1,871
I have a 70-200 f4 non IS. I absolutely love it. Its awesome for filming and taking photos and has great depth at f4 still. I didnt get the IS version because it was way more and when shooting at higher shutter speeds or filming its non really that important i find. Also its not to big of a lens so its still easy to carry around with you.
Mar 21 2011 2:08PM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9217 - Karma: 5,399
I think the f/4 is your best bet. it's lightest, cheapest, and smallest. I think you'll usually have plenty of light outside with snow settings so f/4 is fine. you don't really need IS just cause you don't. you're not in low light, and 200 is not that zoomed in. I picked up a 2.8 IS and it's super heavy. I've even read reviews that sa the f/4 is sharper.
Mar 21 2011 2:55PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,335
Does weight matter to you?
if yes, go f4, if not, go 2.8
Does lowlight performance matter to you?
if no, go f4, if yes, go 2.8

Mar 21 2011 3:26PM
0 0
profile picture
LC.
Posts: 5952 - Karma: 2,423
F4 non-IS. I wish Nikon made one of those, you should really take advantage of the fact you can get it for Canon. The only real reason to go for the 2.8 is if you want to use a teleconverter. Or I guess if you use autofocus to shoot skiing the 2.8 might be a little better. Carr compared them a while ago: http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/09/03/canon-70-200-f2-8-l-is-ii-review-mk2-vs-f4-comparison-is/
Mar 21 2011 3:35PM
0 0
profile picture
solitaryman
Posts: 3578 - Karma: 123
Just throwing this out there:

From sharpest to least sharp of Mark ONE 70-200's.

1. f4 IS
2. f2.8
3. f 2.8 IS
4. f4

And I would not get a telephoto without IS, it'll increase your keeper rate by 50%. if you have the cash of course.
Mar 21 2011 4:37PM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Tripodzzz!

But yeah...

Also a good option is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II. Runs like 800 bucks or so I think? If you don't need the big aperture, just go with the 70-200 f/4
Mar 21 2011 5:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
i never shoot my 70-200 without a monopod/tripod, solves the need for IS for much cheeper. $30 monopod ftw
Mar 21 2011 6:10PM
0 0
profile picture
marc_vertesi
Posts: 84 - Karma: 294
Well thank you very much, it really helped me to make a choice! But still, I am not really sure if I should invest a bit more money in the IS version of the f/4, because I really want to shoot more close-up shots, fast moving objects, moving backgrounds (I'm sorry, I'm swiss and I'm really struggling to find the right words for the video slang), if you understand what i mean... Of course I've got a tripod, I never shoot without it, but i bought a DV-700 (super bargain) which has a really smooth head! But I think I will go for the IS version...

Anyways, thank you very much, and if you got more tips, don't hesitate!
Mar 22 2011 12:23PM
0 0
profile picture
LC.
Posts: 5952 - Karma: 2,423
IS does nothing for moving objects and you shouldn't use it if you're shooting faster than 1/500.
Mar 22 2011 1:44PM
0 0
profile picture
MANDER
Posts: 4017 - Karma: 2,038
All four are great lenses, get whichever one you can afford.
Mar 22 2011 5:35PM
0 0
profile picture
cbeebzthasteeze
Posts: 1862 - Karma: 85
I've got the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR and I absolutely love it. Takes such crisp shots during the day and night!
Mar 22 2011 8:31PM
0 0
profile picture
marc_vertesi
Posts: 84 - Karma: 294
Well, after long discussions with my credit card, I finally decided to buy the f/4 IS! Just wanted to thank you guys for the advices, I made a edit from Sunday with the lens, using it for the first time, it's such an amazing lens, can't wait to shoot more with it! Check out the edit in the video section!
Mar 29 2011 4:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Jordan
Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122
yeeeeep! great lens.
Mar 29 2011 4:24PM
0 0
profile picture
solitaryman
Posts: 3578 - Karma: 123
Great choice my friend! Fuck the haters, IS is useful on that lens. Say you're walking around new york for a whole day.. you're not going to want to carry a monopod or tripod. Trust me, you'll see the value.
Mar 29 2011 9:45PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
My mom owns a 70-200 f/4 L and let's me use it every once in a while. I have to say it is one of the best zoom tele lenses you can get. The only con is that it's kinda heavy which may be a bitch when carrying it around the hill. If you're willing to drop 1500 on a lens, f/4 L is money well spent.
Mar 30 2011 2:40AM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,682
Dan Carr has published a lot of good information on this subject; mostly in his blog.

If I was to buy a 70-200 right now it would be the 4 IS. My rational.
Weight is important. the 4's are much lighter then the 2.8s.
Modern high ISO quality. It is now possible to get very crisp images at high ISOs.
Depth of Field is not a problem at 200mm.
The 4 IS has better quality then the 4.
Mar 30 2011 4:11PM
0 0
profile picture
Brentizzle
Posts: 1584 - Karma: 1,871
my non IS 70-200 f4 L was only 760 brand new......
Mar 30 2011 6:47PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
Im talking IS, whoops meant 1000, but bottom line great lens
Mar 30 2011 6:53PM
0 0
profile picture
@ScubaSteve
Posts: 378 - Karma: 822
huh. didn't know the f4 IS is the sharpest. thought that new 2.8 IS 2 would be.
Is the f4 IS still as sharp is your using it with the IS off?
Mar 30 2011 6:54PM
0 0
profile picture
niels043
Posts: 814 - Karma: 185
Yeah the f4 models are both great but some people don't realize that while the f4 non-IS is a durable awesome lens, it is not weather sealed, all other versions are. Don't get me wrong it is still a badass lens and worth every penny
Mar 31 2011 12:33AM
0 0
profile picture
Brentizzle
Posts: 1584 - Karma: 1,871
i did not know this. Well i have already dropped my 7d in the snow 3 times this year with that lens on it and its been fine. It has withstood a lot of different weather from sand-storms to blowing snow storms to rain and it has been fine. any of these is sick.
Mar 31 2011 1:04AM
0 0
profile picture
chipkalback
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 30
I just put up my 70-200 yesterday on eBay if you're still looking?

Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS: http://r.ebay.com/fFI2s5

Mar 31 2011 11:41AM
0 0
profile picture
marc_vertesi
Posts: 84 - Karma: 294
Such a sick lens, can't get enough of it! Really happy that I bought it!

@Chipkalback : Nope, saw it too late! But thanks!
Apr 5 2011 12:55PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)