Canon 70-200 F4
Discussion
Just a quick question...
I've been looking at one of these for a while now!
I need (want!
) a telephoto for my 40D and borrowed my dad's 70-300IS for the Bournemouth air fair. I was pretty impressed with it, but quite fancy something a little faster (if only I could have the f2.8!!) and reckon I can cope with the sacrifice in range.
I just wanted to get some opinions whether I'm going to be annoyed with the lack of IS.
The IS version seems an awful lot more and I reckon if I was going to chuck that much money at it, I'd just find the extra £80 or so and get the 2.8...
Anyhow, over to you.
Oh and I want the lens for something a touch longer than my 28-135IS and more specifically for motorsport and possibly air fairs.
TIA
I've been looking at one of these for a while now!
I need (want!
) a telephoto for my 40D and borrowed my dad's 70-300IS for the Bournemouth air fair. I was pretty impressed with it, but quite fancy something a little faster (if only I could have the f2.8!!) and reckon I can cope with the sacrifice in range. I just wanted to get some opinions whether I'm going to be annoyed with the lack of IS.
The IS version seems an awful lot more and I reckon if I was going to chuck that much money at it, I'd just find the extra £80 or so and get the 2.8...
Anyhow, over to you.
Oh and I want the lens for something a touch longer than my 28-135IS and more specifically for motorsport and possibly air fairs.
TIA
70-200f4L is a superb lens , its light, sharp and a decent range, quick USM focus.
Canon on these charge an absolute unjustifiable ransom for IS, and on the f2.8.
I've used one of the f4's extensivly and its great wide open at any focal length.
BTW I bought a sigma 70-200f2.8 with TC (all used) for less than the canon f4.
Canon on these charge an absolute unjustifiable ransom for IS, and on the f2.8.
I've used one of the f4's extensivly and its great wide open at any focal length.
BTW I bought a sigma 70-200f2.8 with TC (all used) for less than the canon f4.
LukeBird said:
Canon on these charge an absolute unjustifiable ransom for IS, and on the f2.8.
You mean I've been ripped off 
The 70-200 f2.8 IS is a beast, I cannot live without it! Saying that, I've never tried the non-is version
Anyhow, my father in law has the F4 you mention, it's a beauty of a lens for the price. Don't have any test shots handy, but used it before getting my 2.8 and it's well worth the money!
The price difference between the F4 and F4IS is as much (almost) as the 70-300IS complete - and almost prices it the same as the f2.8
People pay it because they 'need' IS and the lenses are superb and keep their value.
A friend just payed near $3k (NZ) for the f2.8IS! Its going to earn him money though so justifiable.
People pay it because they 'need' IS and the lenses are superb and keep their value.
A friend just payed near $3k (NZ) for the f2.8IS! Its going to earn him money though so justifiable.
RobDickinson said:
People pay it because they 'need' IS and the lenses are superb and keep their value.
A friend just payed near $3k (NZ) for the f2.8IS! Its going to earn him money though so justifiable.
That's the thing, I don't think I do 'need' (;)) the IS.A friend just payed near $3k (NZ) for the f2.8IS! Its going to earn him money though so justifiable.
Yeah I'm sure it'd be nice to have, (although I must do some comparison shots to see if there is any difference...) but for £300 more or so, or nearly double the price, it seems like a waste of money.
I think I'd sooner have the 70-200 F4 non-IS and the 70-300IS for the money.
So general consensus seems to be leading towards the IS not being worth the extra...?
well, I am a pro and I use canon 70-200 2.8 , so no IS for me.. Firstly nonIS is a tad sharper, and the price difference is huge. I like the IS on my 24-105 as I tend to shoot a lot from the back of the car without even looking trough the lens.. but for 70-200 you do not need it.. I also use the 2x converter on it sometimes.. it is not all that sharp but it is ok if you do not have to have 400 mm all the time..
so my siggestion would be, stretch the budget and get the 2.8 nonIS..
so my siggestion would be, stretch the budget and get the 2.8 nonIS..
If you think about it the IS gives you say 3 stops.
So at 200mm, you realy want 1/200th or so or less without IS.
With IS that can be up to 1/25th.
Remember often you can gain that 1-2-3 stops through whakcing the ISO up a little more.
So IS is usefull if you dont want to push the ISO any more and cant get 1/200th or faster.
My mate bought the IS f2.8 because he shoots weddings and often inside dark churches etc and looking over his shots (from the 24-70f2.8 etc) he's often at ISO1600(5D) and 1/50th etc. It pays him to have the extra few stops as he needs to 'get' the shot.
So at 200mm, you realy want 1/200th or so or less without IS.
With IS that can be up to 1/25th.
Remember often you can gain that 1-2-3 stops through whakcing the ISO up a little more.
So IS is usefull if you dont want to push the ISO any more and cant get 1/200th or faster.
My mate bought the IS f2.8 because he shoots weddings and often inside dark churches etc and looking over his shots (from the 24-70f2.8 etc) he's often at ISO1600(5D) and 1/50th etc. It pays him to have the extra few stops as he needs to 'get' the shot.
I have the 70-200 f4 IS but have never used the non IS version.
I would say that the IS is nice if you can stretch to it - when it whirs up with a reassuringly old style mechanical buzz, it does look like you've 'locked on target' a la Luke Skywalker.
I got mine new for just over £500 a few months back, via amazon. Worth looking round a bit to find a bargain ?
Having said all this I still like my crappy 50 mm f1.8, which is on the camera right now.
I would say that the IS is nice if you can stretch to it - when it whirs up with a reassuringly old style mechanical buzz, it does look like you've 'locked on target' a la Luke Skywalker.
I got mine new for just over £500 a few months back, via amazon. Worth looking round a bit to find a bargain ?
Having said all this I still like my crappy 50 mm f1.8, which is on the camera right now.
kikiturbo said:
so my siggestion would be, stretch the budget and get the 2.8 nonIS..
I'd like to, but for over double the money I think I'd sooner have the 70-200 F4 and the 17-40F4 L! 
My mind's a little more at ease now about going for the non-IS version.
Will keep an eye out for deals now...
/
I opted for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 a number of years ago while sourcing something a little less bulkier than my Canon 300L USM f2.8 (pre IS) for local football matches.
I have to say that I have been pleasantly suprised by the Sigma, so much so that I later went on to purchase both Sigma's APO 300 f4 fixed tele along with an EX 105 f2.8. The latter to compliment the wonderfull Canon 28-105 USM f3.5-4.5 in the macro dept (probably the best ever mid-range Canon lense).
I have been told by a very reliable sorce within the industry that the glass used in Canon lenses comes from the same manufacturer as that used in Sigma. Kenko being the manufacturer and you can make your own assumptions as to exactly which lenses may or may not share the exact same glass.
The Sigma 70-200 works well with a x1.5 and even x2 extender, offering 400mm (more when you consider the added distance to sensor) when situations dictate and with little in the way of loss of quality.
I do not use IS - I'm old school and for a time (early 90's to be precise) used to make my living as a professional photographer from within the motor racing industry.....might seem daft but I consider IS akin to cheating LOL.
My biggest bugbear with the digital revolution has been with metering systems (or lack of it - spot metering anyone?) and the loss of the eye-focusing technology that was initially developed for the EOS 5 in the late 80's!!!!!!!!
By the way, nobody that I knew used autofocus in motorsport, having said that, we pretty much had a captive audience to shoot at anyway!
I have to say that I have been pleasantly suprised by the Sigma, so much so that I later went on to purchase both Sigma's APO 300 f4 fixed tele along with an EX 105 f2.8. The latter to compliment the wonderfull Canon 28-105 USM f3.5-4.5 in the macro dept (probably the best ever mid-range Canon lense).
I have been told by a very reliable sorce within the industry that the glass used in Canon lenses comes from the same manufacturer as that used in Sigma. Kenko being the manufacturer and you can make your own assumptions as to exactly which lenses may or may not share the exact same glass.
The Sigma 70-200 works well with a x1.5 and even x2 extender, offering 400mm (more when you consider the added distance to sensor) when situations dictate and with little in the way of loss of quality.
I do not use IS - I'm old school and for a time (early 90's to be precise) used to make my living as a professional photographer from within the motor racing industry.....might seem daft but I consider IS akin to cheating LOL.
My biggest bugbear with the digital revolution has been with metering systems (or lack of it - spot metering anyone?) and the loss of the eye-focusing technology that was initially developed for the EOS 5 in the late 80's!!!!!!!!
By the way, nobody that I knew used autofocus in motorsport, having said that, we pretty much had a captive audience to shoot at anyway!
Not to make a point but...
Kenko supply (glass) blanks , not the finished elements, and the special flouride elements canon make themselves.
Spot meetering is on canons from the 30D on and up.
If Eye focusing was so great why dont they use it? Because I assume (having not used it) it isnt up to modern cross type sensors for speed or accuracy?
Kenko supply (glass) blanks , not the finished elements, and the special flouride elements canon make themselves.
Spot meetering is on canons from the 30D on and up.
If Eye focusing was so great why dont they use it? Because I assume (having not used it) it isnt up to modern cross type sensors for speed or accuracy?
RobDickinson said:
Not to make a point but...
Kenko supply (glass) blanks , not the finished elements, and the special flouride elements canon make themselves.
Spot meetering is on canons from the 30D on and up.
If Eye focusing was so great why dont they use it? Because I assume (having not used it) it isnt up to modern cross type sensors for speed or accuracy?
Rob, you are most definately wrong - Kenko are supplying assembled elements, not only to Canon/Sigma but more recently under license to the likes of Fuji (watch this space).Kenko supply (glass) blanks , not the finished elements, and the special flouride elements canon make themselves.
Spot meetering is on canons from the 30D on and up.
If Eye focusing was so great why dont they use it? Because I assume (having not used it) it isnt up to modern cross type sensors for speed or accuracy?
I am fully aware of which models currently sport spot metering, my point was that this did not feature on Canon digital bodies for some time.
As for eye focusing, I can only imagine that the technology is being supressed pending new features on models moving forward.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff