Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Which canon 70-200

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    Briwooly
    Briwooly  8452 forum posts England5 Constructive Critique Points
    4 Nov 2007 - 9:47 PM

    I know this has been done and Ive been through a dozen threads but all to no conclusion. Thinking about a Xmas lens but which one Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L non is or a f4 is, It would be used as a walk about lens ,tight landscapes, candids etc.

    Brian...........................

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    4 Nov 2007 - 9:47 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    richard00
    richard00  8504 forum posts1 Constructive Critique Points
    4 Nov 2007 - 9:59 PM

    don't need IS for landscapes, nor 2.8

    F4 is lighter to carry. unless your need the extra stop go with the F4, even the non IS is a real option. Use the rest of the cash for something else

    da_nige
    da_nige  101153 forum posts Scotland
    4 Nov 2007 - 10:08 PM

    Its a tough one. Both are superb. I bought the f4 non IS 2 months before the IS version came out. If I had some more cash now I would probably sell it and upgrade to the f4IS. Personally I love IS but at the same time have never shot with anything faster than f4.

    To the best of my knowledge the advantages of each are as follows

    f4IS: Smaller, lighter, IS

    f2.8: Faster, possibly more accurate focusing being f2.8 so can use the cross sensor in some cameras

    This will be argued but I have read elsewhere that some people believe that the f4IS is the sharpest of all the Canon 70-200s but to be honest all are superb.

    Briwooly
    Briwooly  8452 forum posts England5 Constructive Critique Points
    4 Nov 2007 - 11:11 PM

    So far then the swing is to the f4 is which if I'm honest is the way I'm thinking

    Brian,,,,,,,,,,,

    kezeka
    kezeka  779 forum posts United States
    4 Nov 2007 - 11:14 PM

    If your portfolio is representative of the majority of work you do, i would say go with the f/4 IS just because land scape's and still life nature shots don't require f/2.8 to shoot, not to mention carrying the beast on a hike to get to any of the aforementioned would certainly add some grievances to your day.

    The only reason i would suggest swinging towards 2.8 is if you really want that thinner depth of field for some interesting photos.

    They are both excellent lenses and you really can't go wrong with either one. Personally i sprang for the 2.8 and absolutely love playing around with the depth of field, but i bought it more for photojournalism and sports.

    Hope that helps,
    ~Josh

    Briwooly
    Briwooly  8452 forum posts England5 Constructive Critique Points
    4 Nov 2007 - 11:28 PM

    Thanks Josh I'm new to this silly hobby and just love taking pic so at the moment its the landscapes with the 17-40L but have enjoyed my attempts with the 90-300 but feel I Need to move on

    Brian................................

    bohemia
    bohemia  12152 forum posts United Kingdom
    5 Nov 2007 - 11:25 AM

    I've just bought the f4 L is and love it to bits. So sharp. I did think about the f2.8 but the weight difference swayed me. Plus I bought the 1.4 extender and the camera is still not too heavy.
    Hubby wishes I held him the same way!!

    p3asa
    p3asa  8676 forum posts Scotland
    5 Nov 2007 - 6:41 PM

    I had the F4. Upgraded it to the 2.8 is version about 4 months ago. Being able to gain several stops while hand holding it is invalubale.

    I never noticed any difference in sharpness between the two.

    The only downside to the 2.8 is the weight. It makes the F4 lens feel weightless Wink. If you really want a walkabout lens then the 2.8 isn't the most ideal.

    In saying that the 2.8 is fantastic for sport etc as it is so quick. I certainly wouldn't swap it back for my F4.

    Steven.

    Last Modified By p3asa at 5 Nov 2007 - 6:43 PM
    samfurlong
    5 Nov 2007 - 9:20 PM

    The 2.8 IS is worth its weight in gold, my most used lens by a mile, fantastic bit of gear.
    Although it is fairly heavy it feels nice on a 1 series body and the usefulness (for me) far outweighs the weight. For your candids it will be perfect (the only drawback being that it is fairly conspicuous because of its size), especially in low light but if you're mainly a landscape man then the f4 version will do you fine.

    stevenj
    stevenj  111982 forum posts England
    7 Nov 2007 - 11:29 PM

    I've got a 70-200 f2.8 L IS for sale if anyone's interested. Better to PM me rather than post tho..

    ade_mcfade
    ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014816 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
    7 Nov 2007 - 11:41 PM

    getting that 5D Steve?

    Smile

    colin beeley
    colin beeley e2 Member 111070 forum postscolin beeley vcard England10 Constructive Critique Points
    8 Nov 2007 - 5:12 PM

    hi if i were you go and take some test shots with the lens you are thinking of buying come home and check on your computer. i have a canon 70/200 2.8 L & the IS version the non IS was a lot sharper so the IS had to go . i did read that canon 70/200 f4 L IS was one of the sharpest lens they had tested . i will get one myself when i get some spare cash, be ideal for holidays as waik about lens . cb.

    Briwooly
    Briwooly  8452 forum posts England5 Constructive Critique Points
    8 Nov 2007 - 10:26 PM

    Thanks everone for you help and comments . Have ordered the 70-200 F4 IS let you know how I get on

    Brian.............................

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.