 Glenn A. Blanchette |
Which Canon 70-200mm to buy? I own a Canon 30D and am looking at buying my first good lens. I am interested in zooming in on various landscape features or interesting objects. I want the compression effect of a telephoto but may still want to achieve some latitude to creatively play with depth of field. My price range is approx. $1200. It seems I'm trying to choose between the Canon 70-200 f4L IS or the Canon 70-200 f2.8L non-IS. I also may try some candid shots of people. So it's a case of deciding between the extra f-stop or the IS feature. Any opinions from someone who may have tried both lenses? (I'm afraid of the 2.8 IS because of both the cost and the weight. Exactly how difficult is this lens to lug around? Does it have to remain permanently screwed to a tripod?
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Once, again, I don't what you mean when yo say "first good lens," as most of today's lenses are - maybe not great. First, if you are planning landscape images, you'll want a wide angle. Using either of the lenses you mention on the 30D, with its 1.6 lens factor, results in a 45 mm minimum focal length, which is not really ideal for landscapes. So, you want to start with some that has at least a 17-18 mm minimum focal length. Then you say you want telphoto capability. The two Canon lenses will allow a 320 mm telephoto maximum. OK - but again, no wide angle capability. Most of the Canon lenses with variable aperture are slow [f/3.5-5.6,] so it's worth the extra bucks to get the fixed f/2.8. If you have the cash, the f/2.8 IS is the lens to buy, along with something in the 10-24 mm range. If you really just want one lens and can stand f/3.5-5.6, consider the new Tamron 18-250, which I think is available in an IS. If not, the 18-300 mm is. Make sure you buy the lens for digital [a model is available for traditional cameras.]
|
|
|
|
||
|
R K Stephenson |
Hi, Glenn, Specifically regarding your question about lugging around the f/2.8 IS, it is doable. You get used to the extra weight quickly and I don't really notice it unless I'm swapping from my (very light) EF 10-22. The first/top three shots in my gallery are with the 70-200 f/2.8, hand-held at 200mm. Cheers, RK
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn A. Blanchette |
to John, For general photography I own a EF 28-105mm. I find it is very suseptible to flare on my Canon 30D. With regards to landscape shots I wish to shoot with a 70-200mm because I intent to zoom in to various landscape "features". That is to say, objects or points of localized interest such as a lone tree on a distant hill or a distant wagon in a misty field or a flyfisherman in a foggy stream. The area in which I live is highly developed and does not offer much panoramic scenery. I have to zoom into small niches of beauty. Thus my need for a telephoto approach. If I had my choice I would move to the western USA and buy a very good wide angle lens. It would be heaven to spend some time near the grand canyon or the Teton mountains or so many other beautiful places out that way. But such is life, I will have to bide my time focusing on carefully sought after small patches of beauty. to RK, Thanks to both of you for responding. Glenn
|
|
|
|
||
|
R K Stephenson |
Thanks, Glenn. Sorry I wasn't very clear in my note. I have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Canon's stabilization technology is excellent but it is pricey. You can really see it kick in. Not much use with a tripod, though, as all of the Canon IS lenses recommend shutting it off for tripod use. From the scenarios you describe, you might take a look at the EF 100-400 IS. It is just a bit more expensive than the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8. You can hand hold (at least toward the 100mm end). You get a lot of focal length to play with and even though it's f/4.5-5.6, that shouldn't be an issue on a tripod. Cheers, RK
|
|
|
|
||
- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery |
Hi Glenn, My 1st L lens was the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) and it was a fine lens. Eventually I sold the f/4 to upgrade to the faster f/2.8 IS lens. The reason I decided to get the IS instead of the non IS version was because I use mine for weddings, festivals, social gatherings where I do not want to use my tripod and need the IS more. If you use your tripod all the time, then skip the IS but if you need the freedom of not using a tripod, I suggest getting IS. One other thing I would like to share is that I have bought & sold lenses as I have slowly upgraded over the last few years and I am to the point now that I will not compromise. If I know that there is a specific lens I want, I save & get it because everytime I compromise with something that is close but cheaper, I end up selling and buying what I wanted in the 1st place. Just some food for thought.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn A. Blanchette |
Thanks everyone. I guess I'll just have to go to the local camera store and physically test what lens feels the best...a five pound lens without a tripod or a 29 ounce lens with a tripod attached. (But I know a tripod can be a pain to lug around andset up all of the time. And then I have to consider the guilt factor. I have been happily married for 30 years to a wife who has never asked for much. She has given me the go ahead to buy a special lens because she says I deserve it, but if I buy the lesser expensive lens, maybe I could then get her something special too. Isn't life complicated??? Glenn
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn A. Blanchette |
I went to the local camera store to check out the Canon 70-200 lenses. There is no doubt that the 2.8 IS version is the king. My main concern was weight and comfort of handling. I found that, since none of these lenses were lightweights, once you're reached the weight of the f4 IS, the extra weight of the 2.8 IS wasn't going to be extraordinary. I would have liked to have been able to compare with the non-IS 2.8 but there weren't any on stock. It's obvious a neck strap would not be a viable option. I would consider some sort of over-the-shoulder harness. Any ideas for anyone else who might be wondering the same thing? (I may be delayed for a while...got alot of saving and thinking to do.) Again, I would like to thank those who responded to my questions. I am new to this site and instead of just admiring excellent photos I now had my first contact with real people. This site really is a community and it seems to ba a nice place to be. Thank You.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery |
I think its a coin flip between the f/4 IS vs the f/2.8 non-IS. I would personally get the f/2.8 but I also carry my tripod with me everywhere. Shooting at 1/60s or faster, most people can get by without IS. At Zoo's I have taken good shots with the 70-200 and a monopod. I have read some reviews that said the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is the sharpest of the 4 lenses - check out the reviews at http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
I've owned both the 2.8 lenses and have read that the 2.8 non IS is sharper but if your handholding the lens the IS is what you want. I did shoot 1 whole day of AMA racing with the Non IS when I packed the wrong lens and my photos were spot on, go with the 2.8 version.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery |
Hey Glenn, One more thing I wanted to mention is that I use a Tamrac deep holster bag with shoulder strap to carry my camera with the big lens attached. It is deep enough to fit my camera with the 70-200 or my 100-400mm lens attached with lens hood flipped around backwards. I found it more comfortable than the neck strap and the pouches & pockets are nice for additional batteries, cf cards & lens cloth. I also avoid bags with the Nikon or Canon logo on them so as not to advertise what I am carrying.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Here is another HUGE thing to consider, your wife has been with you for 30 years so she's LOCKED in for the whole ride....Just Kidding. What I really was going to say is the 2x or 1.4x teleconverters are very benefitial and you'll still have autofocus with the 2.8 lens otherwise its manual and without great eyesight manual with teleconverters is kinda difficult (I use them at AMA races and surf competitions). GET THE 2.8...BTW the 2.8IS is only 3.5lbs and I use it with a 1Ds MarkII so you get used to the weight.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom Leckwart |
Glenn, I shoot sports witha 30D and I prefer a monopod. Easy to move and steadies the lens, tripods are cumbersome for sports. Really helps on cloudy days. Try a non IS with a monopod if you can, might save you some bucks if it works for what you like to shoot. But if you have the money, get the 2.8 IS, there is no going wrong there.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn A. Blanchette |
The haze is lifting and I can now see the light. I got so caught up with the opportunity to buy new equipment that I lost myself going one-up on each decision. For each lens I looked at, there's a better one, etc., etc. We all enjoy photography so much because we get a chance to show and share the results of our creative efforts and hopefully be complimented. Otherwise, it would all be a lonely, non-fulfilling pursuit regardless of what equipment we own. So here is the plan. I will save for the f2.8 version but will go with the non-IS version. With the money I save from not buying the IS, I will be able to buy my wife a Canon Rebel 400D XTi. I know she would love to share the fun of photography. When I look at the whole picture, I'm giving up the IS but I gain a very deserving and enthusiastic photo companion. Since my travel budget is limited, I will try to acquire a Sigma (Oh! Gosh! Not a Canon?) 150mm macro lens. This will allow us to shoot creative pictures when the great locations and perfect conditions are out of reach. I will teach myself Photoshop and usedthe money saved on courses to help finance this plan. Oliver, you were very diplomatic in suggesting that auto focus is possible with a tele-converter on the 2.8 for those of us "without great eyesight". I guess my 30 years marriage gave it away. But, all joking aside, thanks. Oh! and I checked out your gallery, I'll probably have to restrain myself from shooting gorgeous models when I bring my wife along on photo shoots. Some guys got it all, you got the beach AND the women. Just joking. Tom. the monopod is something I'll definitely look into. Carlton, Thanks for the tip on the Tamrac deep holster bag. Glenn
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Get the Canon 100Macro...Its a great lens and you'll for sure need a Tripod to shoot Macro...get a good ballhead so you can shoot with the 70-200.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn A. Blanchette |
Oliver, The 100mm Canon macro is no doubt a great lens but I have read some very complimentary reports related to the Sigma 150mm macro. So I think I'll probably start a new Q&A thread concerning a comparison of these two lenses and see what sort of concensus there is out there. I guess a big factor is the 1.6 crop factor with the Canon D30 camera. Regards,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn A. Blanchette |
Back to the 70-200 lens selection, another significant factor has come into play...WEATHER RESISTANCE !! I think the IS version of the f2.8 is weather sealed,while the non-IS version is not. Since one reason I want this lens is to compress landscape features such as fog and mist, I may have to consider this factor very seriously. I expect to do some damp and cold photography. Also, this lens may see some winter (ice/snow) conditions. Just when I thought I could go a little cheaper...darn. Glenn
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thomas E. Dillon |
Glenn, for many of the same reasons you cited (especially my wife), I elected to go with the 70-200 f/4 IS. It, too, is weather-sealed, but it wouldn't be sealed when mounted on your wife's XTi. I have an XTi, and use my f/4 for wildlife. The f/2.8 would indeed be nice, but to me, not worth the difference in weight and cost. I also have a Canon 300 f/4 IS prime, and love it, as well. Just a differing opinion. Tom
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn A. Blanchette |
I'm now leaning towards purchasing the 70-200 f/4 IS....similar to Tom's approach, less weight, less dollars, and ease of use as a carry-around camera. However, I like to use a polarizing filter. Can anyone give me some insight on their sucess regarding using a polarizing filter with this lens? The loss of an f-stop or so concerns me and may affect the focusing capabilities. If I get alot of positive response, I'll go ahead with it. If not, I'm back where I started.
|
|
|
|
||
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
I have the 70-200, F4. And I use a circular polarizer. It's a quality lens...very well rated. True, the polarizer will cut down light...but a monopod and/or tripod will help, and you can bump your ISO. And if you shoot raw, you can purposely underexpose, and recapture when you process. Bottom line..go for it!
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery |
Hi Glenn, I do love circular polarizers and I would encourage you to spend the extra $$ for either a Heliopan or B&W. I use the B&W Kaeseman 77mm that fits 4 of my lenses (17-40, 24-70, 70-200 & 100-400). I use them mostly for landscape/waterfall photos but recently used it on my 100-400mm while out taking photos of Gray whales on a nice sunny day and it really helped. One bright days you can afford to lose 2 stops and still get a fast enough shutter speed but for my landscape images I am using a tripod and getting as much DOF as possible and use much slower shutter speeds. Dont spend $$ on quality glass and stick a cheap filter in front of it. Can I get an "Amen" Oliver ? Good luck Glenn.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery |
I just noticed the f/4 versions use a 67mm filter size.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn A. Blanchette |
I've done my homework and my plan is to utilize a 77mm filter via a 67-77mm step-up ring on the lens. I'm just trying to determine if the designated lens hood for this lens would still fit or if I would have to buy a different one for this set-up. Anyone know?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Suzanne Colson |
I opted for the Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS lens. Price was a factor, but also the sharpness of the f/4 is supposedly better then that of the non-IS f/4 and non-IS and IS f/2.8 versions; at least that is what my initial research showed. I just tried my lens hood with my step-up ring and no it does not work with a 77mm filter. OK, it works if you put the lens hood on first and then attach, but there is very, very little space to work with and if the filter or ring ever got stuck in place it would be almost impossible to free so I wouldn't recommend. As for lens hoods I was always under the impression, given the varying sizes, styles, that each lens hood was designed specifically for the lens when avoiding things like lens flare, vignetting, etc. Not sure, but taking from memory.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn A. Blanchette |
Thanks for the input Suzanne. I was hoping to go with a step-up ring and a 77mm filter so that the same filter could conceivably be used should I ever be able to afford one of the other L lenses (many of which take a 77mm filter.) However, I'll accept your advice, and avoid the step-up ring for my 70-200 f/4L IS. I'll buy 67mm filters. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||