Canon Zoom Lens choice
Discussion
With the 70-200, whether or not you need IS will depend on what you are shooting. For many sports, a high shutter speed is needed, so IS won't really make much difference. However, for situations like the portraits you mentioned, or panning in motorsport etc the shutter speed will be much slower so IS may help.
Obviously the L series will be better, but try a Sigma, it's the only way to know if you will be happy with the results, and results may vary depending on the individual lens. Maybe a used canon would be possible, there are plenty around.
The 70-200 F4 is lighter than I thought it would be, not had the pleasure of owning a canon 2.8, but the sigma is fairly heavy. But for things like the downhill, light can be an issue, so personally I would definitely go for a 2.8
Obviously the L series will be better, but try a Sigma, it's the only way to know if you will be happy with the results, and results may vary depending on the individual lens. Maybe a used canon would be possible, there are plenty around.
The 70-200 F4 is lighter than I thought it would be, not had the pleasure of owning a canon 2.8, but the sigma is fairly heavy. But for things like the downhill, light can be an issue, so personally I would definitely go for a 2.8
)Since you mentioned Sigma's I love my 100-300 EX f4, it's responsive, sharp as a pin and feels just as well made as any L series lens. The only downsides are it's not exactly light (but then neither are the 70-200L f2.8's) and it would have been nice to have IS as well, although it's not exactly a deal breaker for me.
Some shots taken with it:
Lydden British Rallycross April 2010 - 22 by dogsey, on Flickr
1/125s . f/10.0 . ISO 100 . 223 mm
Having a laugh by dogsey, on Flickr
1/640s . f/5.6 . ISO 200 . 300 mm
Wheatear by dogsey, on Flickr
1/1000s . f/5.6 . ISO 200 . 420 mm (Used Canon's 1.4x extender)
All shot hand-held.
Some shots taken with it:
Lydden British Rallycross April 2010 - 22 by dogsey, on Flickr
1/125s . f/10.0 . ISO 100 . 223 mm
Having a laugh by dogsey, on Flickr
1/640s . f/5.6 . ISO 200 . 300 mm
Wheatear by dogsey, on Flickr
1/1000s . f/5.6 . ISO 200 . 420 mm (Used Canon's 1.4x extender)
All shot hand-held.
I bought the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 OS a few months ago and absolutely adore it. It probably gets more use than any of my other lenses, 17-85mm walkabout included. I tried it out side by side with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II and whilst it was better, it wasn't an extra £900 better in my eyes. For just shy of £1000, you get a lot of lens for your money and the 3 year warranty is a nice bonus.
What you should also consider is that the lens you will probably keep indefinitely, the body will possibly/probably get upgraded in 2-3 years and you can make the call whether the 70/80/90D or 5D Mk3/4 is worth upgrading to which will take care of the big lens-dwarf camera body problem.
What you should also consider is that the lens you will probably keep indefinitely, the body will possibly/probably get upgraded in 2-3 years and you can make the call whether the 70/80/90D or 5D Mk3/4 is worth upgrading to which will take care of the big lens-dwarf camera body problem.
I used my 100-400 IS last weekend at the Birdman event in Worthing.
I was at least 600 yards away from the pier and I am amazed at the results. Admittedly I'm using a 5D MKII, but you should get not too dissimilar results.
Click n the image which will take you to flickr, then vie the largest image which is 100% (I cropped the original image)
Worthing Birdman by Martin_Bennett, on Flickr
I was at least 600 yards away from the pier and I am amazed at the results. Admittedly I'm using a 5D MKII, but you should get not too dissimilar results.
Click n the image which will take you to flickr, then vie the largest image which is 100% (I cropped the original image)
Worthing Birdman by Martin_Bennett, on Flickr
That's the dilemma, do you spend less but get a lens that meets your criteria now, or do you spend more and get a lens you can possibly grow into?
Most of the time, my lens is used outdoors in optimal light and as has been said, there is little to no need for the OS. I have increasingly found ways to use the lens that I otherwise would have missed out on without the OS (indoor sports, concerts, gigs, plays - all with permission of course!). If you see yourself only ever shooting in broad daylight at fairly high shutter speeds, then defo save yourself a few bob and get one of the older Sigma 70-200mm lenses.
For me, I was happier in the knowledge that I had OS to use if I ever needed it rather than needing it that one time where I don't have it.
Most of the time, my lens is used outdoors in optimal light and as has been said, there is little to no need for the OS. I have increasingly found ways to use the lens that I otherwise would have missed out on without the OS (indoor sports, concerts, gigs, plays - all with permission of course!). If you see yourself only ever shooting in broad daylight at fairly high shutter speeds, then defo save yourself a few bob and get one of the older Sigma 70-200mm lenses.
For me, I was happier in the knowledge that I had OS to use if I ever needed it rather than needing it that one time where I don't have it.
Edited by Cybertronian on Tuesday 16th August 22:53
I've never had IS on a long lens! 
I have had a sigma 70-200f2.8 and now a canon 70-200f2.8 and a canon 400f5.6L
But regardless, there all great lenses.
f4IS is superb, light, easy to use, good IS.
F2.8 is a stop faster (better subject isolation, faster shutter speeds) but heavier.
There is no right, or wrong , answer here.
Had I not got a cheap canon 70-200f2.8 I would have looked at the f4IS or 70-200 OS sigma.
I have had a sigma 70-200f2.8 and now a canon 70-200f2.8 and a canon 400f5.6LBut regardless, there all great lenses.
f4IS is superb, light, easy to use, good IS.
F2.8 is a stop faster (better subject isolation, faster shutter speeds) but heavier.
There is no right, or wrong , answer here.
Had I not got a cheap canon 70-200f2.8 I would have looked at the f4IS or 70-200 OS sigma.
Don't forget the 70-300 L lens too, got one this year and it was excellent at Le Mans on my 550D. Quite a compact lens too which is handy.
Le Mans 24 Hour, June 2011 by giveitfish, on Flickr
Le Mans 24 Hour, June 2011 by giveitfish, on Flickr
There's no right answer to this - my suggestion:-
Bog standard 'cheapo' canon 'L' 70-200 F4 - truely excellent and very consistant lens [not like 100-400 or 70-200 F2.8 which are VERY inconstant for IQ] If you need faster lenses in the range up to 200 then buy a prime to go with the cheapo zoom to suit your specialist needs, if it's for portraits the 85 F1.8 USM is awesome and very reasonbly priced for a quality lens.
If 200mm is where you use the lens most then buy the Canon 'L' 200mm F2.8 Prime. another stunning and underated lens, again reasonably priced IMO for the IQ it delivers, and downright cheap compared to the F2.8 Zoom - Even the best of canon's 'L' 70-200F2.8 HUGE zooms ain't a patch on the very Small & lightweight 200mm prime.
Just my 2 pennath - You pays your money etc.
Plenty will disagree
Bog standard 'cheapo' canon 'L' 70-200 F4 - truely excellent and very consistant lens [not like 100-400 or 70-200 F2.8 which are VERY inconstant for IQ] If you need faster lenses in the range up to 200 then buy a prime to go with the cheapo zoom to suit your specialist needs, if it's for portraits the 85 F1.8 USM is awesome and very reasonbly priced for a quality lens.
If 200mm is where you use the lens most then buy the Canon 'L' 200mm F2.8 Prime. another stunning and underated lens, again reasonably priced IMO for the IQ it delivers, and downright cheap compared to the F2.8 Zoom - Even the best of canon's 'L' 70-200F2.8 HUGE zooms ain't a patch on the very Small & lightweight 200mm prime.
Just my 2 pennath - You pays your money etc.
Plenty will disagree
Edited by S47 on Wednesday 17th August 12:59
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff