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 question

profile picture
*pbartram*
Posts: 260 - Karma: 1,403
So i'm thinking about getting this lens but i'm on a limited budget. Now I would like the 2.8 but obviously theres the problem of it costing a fair amount more. I've found the 70-200 2.8 for £400 thats about $640. Now is there much benefit of having IS and does it warrant spending 3 times as much?

What I'm really asking is, is it worth waiting and saving up for the 70-200 2.8 IS rather than just buying the 70-200 2.8?
May 10 2012 5:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Strobe
Posts: 279 - Karma: 8
what tripod do you have? It will only be as stable as your support!
May 10 2012 5:53PM
0 0
profile picture
TravelsTI
Posts: 1000 - Karma: 353
70-200 f/4 IS hands down.
May 10 2012 6:02PM
0 0
profile picture
*pbartram*
Posts: 260 - Karma: 1,403
a manfrotto 190XB and the 701hdv head
May 10 2012 6:02PM
0 0
profile picture
.Max.
Posts: 2930 - Karma: 701
^True.

That sounds like a fucking steal though... I'd go for it.
May 10 2012 6:02PM
0 0
profile picture
*pbartram*
Posts: 260 - Karma: 1,403
so is it worth spending double the money on the f4 IS.
May 10 2012 6:04PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Where did you find a 70-200 F2.8 for $640? I'd be EXTREMELY sceptical about that, last time i checked they went for just under a grand used, basically the same price as the F4 IS (Better for ski photography). For video I'd go with the 70-200 2.8 non-IS, if you panning you will have it off anyways and optically the 70-200 F2.8 and IS1 are pretty similar. I love my F4 non-IS, its tack sharp, perfect for skiing, I have to have it on a tripod though at 200mm, even 70mm is a bit tough sometimes to get the composure perfect.
May 10 2012 6:09PM
0 0
profile picture
*pbartram*
Posts: 260 - Karma: 1,403
Just realised it was a Sigma lens. Only said 70-200 canon fit on the ad. Got me a bit excited! and was in my town. Oh well better keep on looking.

Ok so the f4 is better for ski photography and way cheaper.

So I may be going out to Africa at some point this summer on a photography and conservation course. Now I will get to do a fair amount of wildlife photography and with that in mind which of the lenses would you suggest?
May 10 2012 6:14PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
It just depends how thin a depth of field you want and how much room you have in your pack/how much weight you want to carry? The 2.8 is like 75% heavier and takes up way more room in your bag. In both cases your shooting in sunny conditions so you won't need the fast aperture, and the F4L still has great bokeh wide open. If you can afford it I'd go F4L IS for photography, again for video IS is pointless cus you'll have it on a tripod, it can be nice for photography, what percentage do you shoot each? If you can't drop $1000 on a lens, the F4L non-IS is a great value, its just better to have it on a tripod (not sure if that would work on a safari).

You might also want to look into some extenders for your safari, they can be really helpful. That is also a factor on which lens you choose, I believe the 2.8 handles them better because of a change in your effective aperture, certain cameras don't have auto-focus for higher native F stop lenses. What body do you shoot on? Check out Dan Carr's blog for help on that, he uses them a ton on his F4L IS with his 1d's.

http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/

I'd just stick to the Canon versions. Sigma makes some good glass, but Canon is renowned for its 70-200 lineup, some of their best lenses.
May 10 2012 6:23PM
0 0
profile picture
*pbartram*
Posts: 260 - Karma: 1,403
Im shooting on the 550d atm but i'm looking to upgrade at some point. But I also want to get some decent glass before I do.
May 10 2012 6:38PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Then you probably won't need a 2x adapter so the F4L will be fine with a 1.4x, you should keep auto-focus but your aperture will be reduced by one stop. Again, not a big deal in day light. Now it just comes down to IS or non-IS.....
May 10 2012 6:51PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
70-200 f/2.8 for that price is a steal in my book. Hop on that before someone else does.

On a side note, you might wanna consider upgrading tripods if you want smooth pans... My experience with manfrottos and focal lengths past 50mm has been subpar
May 10 2012 6:52PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Somebody didn't read the whole thread...

Its the sigma not the canon so no. F2.8 is useless if you not shooting in low light, and unless you have a 5 stop ND there is no way you'll be able to shoot video @2.8 with a reasonable shutter at the hill. You'd be better off with the F4L non-is and a tele-converter or the F4L IS. Fair point on the manfrotto tripod though, I get away with mine for photo but for video you might need something beefier for 200mm.
May 10 2012 6:57PM
0 0
profile picture
*pbartram*
Posts: 260 - Karma: 1,403
So the f4 IS is the better option to the f2.8.

I think the only reason that I swayed towards the 2.8 in the first place was that I would also use it at my local dry ski slope and as freestyle sessions are only on in the evenings I wanted the 2.8's low light capabilities.
May 10 2012 7:36PM
0 0
profile picture
mBall
Posts: 1690 - Karma: 2,827
Threads. Coming up on buying a 70-200 soon. Trying to figure out if I want to spend the extra for the 2.8...
May 10 2012 7:46PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
F4 IS is a better option for day time, if you are shooting at night then the 2.8 will be helpful. It just comes down to which benefits you need more. What percentage photo/video are you shooting?
May 10 2012 7:59PM
0 0
profile picture
mBall
Posts: 1690 - Karma: 2,827
Bump. Can someone clear this up? I've asked numerous people and some people say that the IS actually does help with video? I could get the 2.8 but, if I were to get the 4, that would leave $700 or so for other accessories. Anyone have some advice?
May 31 2012 1:27AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61604 - Karma: 123,113
IS can help, but really, with a solid tripod, you don't need IS. IS is made more for photogs doing hand held photos @200mm in a chapel or at a concert, somewhere they have to run a lower shutter speed and need their shot to be more stabile. It's not exactly as effective with video. I'd say save they money and buy a nice tripod :)
May 31 2012 4:16AM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
IS is useless for video. Unless you are shooting something other than snow, get the f/4 non-IS and put the difference towards a tripod sturdy enough to support a telephoto.
Jun 1 2012 12:57PM
0 0
profile picture
mBall
Posts: 1690 - Karma: 2,827
I actually will be shooting stuff other than snow. And when you say "sturdy" do you actually mean sturdy? Or better panning capabilities? I'm using a manfrotto set up now- 501 with 055xprob legs (hah let the manfrotto hate begin)
Jun 1 2012 10:17PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
For instance, I love shooting in rainy/foggy forests. In my experience it can be difficult at times to get enough light unless the lens is all the way open at f/4. And if you plan on doing handheld stills and require a higher shutter speed - forget it. This is with the 7D by the way.

As for the tripod, by sturdy I mean solid legs that won't flex, and a fluid head to match. Manfrottos are friction heads so their pan/tilt function isn't consistent enough at long focal lengths to ensure smooth movements without irregular "jumps" in speed. The legs are super flexy as well, meaning that touching ANY part of the camera while shooting will make the entire image jitter with rolling shutter. If you don't notice it on the LCD, you will when it's being displayed on a TV or computer. Regardless of when lens you choose, I HIGHLY recommend using a lens collar, as it helps stabilize the image greatly. You could also find some surveying legs and use those for telephoto. They're cheap (
Jun 2 2012 11:55AM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
less than $100) and incredibly sturdy.
Jun 2 2012 11:57AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)