70-200mm - f4 L IS vs f2.8 L non IS?

[Kermit power]

I am trying to decide which way I go for my next lens. My thinking at the moment is to upgrade the 70-300mm Tamron lens that came as part of my 450D kit. Looking around, there doesn't seem to be a vast difference in used prices between the stabilised f4 L 70-200 and the non-stabilised f2.8 version.

Would anyone particularly recommend one over the other?

Also, is there anything I'm missing that I might want to consider as an alternative in this general sort of length?

[SamHH]

Depends on your intended use. A faster lens will probably be better for sports and portraiture, a lighter lens with IS will probably be better for general walking around taking photos without a tripod. Personally I'd go for the 1:2.8 lens for the shallower depths of field available. Sigma and Tamron both make 70-200mm 1:2.8 lenses that may be worth considering. I think this topic has come up quite a few times before; try doing a search.

[smack]

Ditto, I would go for the 2.8, for the DOF factor.

[Simpo Two]

I would go with the f2.8 for faster shutter speeds.

[GolfGT]

yeah our tutuor said the best lens with f2.8 are the best

[LukeBird]

SamHH said:

I think this topic has come up quite a few times before; try doing a search.

It most definitely has because I started a thread or two, well worth a search OP

One of the things that was pointed out to me (that I hadn't thought about at all!) was the added weight of the 2.8 version, I was told it was significantly heavier than the f4.
I ended up with the f4 non-IS and couldn't be happier...

[Gemm]

If you NEED f2.8, then there's absolutely no substitute. But IS and lighter weight may be more beneficial for your needs. It's totally up to what you are intending to use the lens for.

[VxDuncan]

Agree - the f2.8 is blinkin' heavy, but worth it if you need the speed. Just be aware how much it weighs...

Couple of other points:
- Check the minimum focus distance - it's usually quite long on these types of glass (1.5m etc). Therefore no good indoors in your front room for example. The sigma 70-200mm macro is far better at this than the canons.
- With the 2.8 you have the option of using a 2x tc to give 400mm @f5.6. This isn't an option on the F4 should you ever need it.
- If you can see past the Canonista requirement to have every lens white or with a red ring then the Sigma 70-200mm is a good alternative. I have one (the updated MkII) version and love it. The reduced min focus is a serious bonus over the Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 AF-D I did have. Also suffers less CA.

[Kermit power]

VxDuncan said:

If you can see past the Canonista requirement to have every lens white or with a red ring then the Sigma 70-200mm is a good alternative.

I'll take a look, thanks. I've already got a Sigma 10-20mm which I'm delighted with, and a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 which is also pretty good, so I'm not going to get hung up on Canon lenses. In fact, the ugly white colour is a major minus point for the 'L' lenses in my book.

ETA - Hmm... Looking on Fred Miranda, the non-macro version of that gets stellar reviews, but the macro version gets really slated.

Edited by Kermit power on Friday 13th February 15:34

[Andy M]

I've recently sold my f2.8 L IS, as it wasn't suited to my needs. Primary to this was its weight, which when coupled with a 1D body and a few more L's really becomes a pain in the back

The f4 L IS is supposedly sharper still than even the f2.8, and a lot lot lighter. I'm going to Focus on Imaging in a couple of weeks and may try on out.

[miniman]

VxDuncan said:

- If you can see past the Canonista requirement to have every lens white or with a red ring then the Sigma 70-200mm is a good alternative. I have one (the updated MkII) version and love it. The reduced min focus is a serious bonus over the Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 AF-D I did have. Also suffers less CA.

Sorry if I'm a Canonista but the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is not even close to being in the same league as the Canon 70-200 L 2.8, with or without IS.

I have the 2.8 IS and to be honest I could happily live without the IS, but not without the 2.8.

[Ordinary Bloke]

miniman said:

VxDuncan said:

- If you can see past the Canonista requirement to have every lens white or with a red ring then the Sigma 70-200mm is a good alternative. I have one (the updated MkII) version and love it. The reduced min focus is a serious bonus over the Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 AF-D I did have. Also suffers less CA.

Sorry if I'm a Canonista but the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is not even close to being in the same league as the Canon 70-200 L 2.8, with or without IS.

I have the 2.8 IS and to be honest I could happily live without the IS, but not without the 2.8.

Me too, I tried IS but didn't see the advantage, give me a large aperture anytime. I did try a Canon L f4 70-200 and it's a nice lens, compact and well made, it would probably be very good for some people's needs.

Having tried the Sigma f2.8 70-200 EX HSM and the Canon L f2.8 70-200 I decided the Sigma was better value for money, many reviews at the time said the same thing. I also bought it in the US when dollars were cheap, and the Sigma warranty was worldwide whereas Canon was regional.

It's definitely a great lens, I also have a x1.4 Sigma EX teleconverter for 280mm f4 (450mm f4 on my EOS) which I rarely/never use.

I love f2.8 but it's big & heavy, you have to be quite committed to take it with you unless you know you're going to need it.

I also own the Tamron f2.8 28-75 XR and whilst I love it for everyday use, the build quality is 'plasticky'. That's where the Sigma 70-200 really scores, it has a real quality feel to it, black crackle finish, smooth operation, nothing cheap about it at all. Except the price.

[Kermit power]

Bloody hell! I hadn't actually realised that the 2.8 was more than twice the weight of the 4!

[miniman]

Kermit power said:

Bloody hell! I hadn't actually realised that the 2.8 was more than twice the weight of the 4!

Its really not that bad!

[4hero]

the 2.8IS is a beautiful lens, doesn't take a bad shot in my opinion. Love mine

[Kermit power]

4hero said:

the 2.8IS is a beautiful lens, doesn't take a bad shot in my opinion. Love mine

Sadly, I can't afford the 2.8 IS. It's either the 4 with it, or the 2.8 without it.

[Ordinary Bloke]

I couldn't justify the L, that's why I bought the Sigma:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php...

[Kermit power]

Ordinary Bloke said:

I couldn't justify the L, that's why I bought the Sigma:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php...

I am looking around for one of those at the moment, but unfortunately it has been discontinued, and the Macro version which took over from it has much more variable reviews on there.

[VxDuncan]

Kermit power said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

I couldn't justify the L, that's why I bought the Sigma:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php...

I am looking around for one of those at the moment, but unfortunately it has been discontinued, and the Macro version which took over from it has much more variable reviews on there.

However that has itself been updated with the MkII Macro version. As I said, I can't rate mine highly enough, For the money it's simply not worth paying the extra for the Nikon (/canon), as I said for me the close focus distance alone makes it worth any slight difference in optics. Have my example set +7 using the D300's AF fine tune - therefore it's front focusing slightly. However I suspect that might be the D300's calibration not the lens, as most of my lenses front focus a little bit. The nifty fifty needs a full +20! The only lens that's spot on is the 30mm F1.4 EX sigma.

[cirks]

Kermit Power, there's an ebay auction for a 70-200L f4 finishing at around 9am if you're tempted (the auction is nothing to do with me, I just happened to be glancing)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CANON-EF-70-200-ULTRASONIC-L...