Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Canon 70-200mm L2.8 non IS "v" 70-200mm L4 IS

webby962 11 128 1 United Kingdom
8 Dec 2006 5:42PM
With the new L4 IS coming in at the same price (or thereabouts. aprox 700) as the older L2.8 non IS, can anyone shed some light on the best way to spend my hard earnt dosh on my first L lens?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

tigerminx 13 237 South Africa
8 Dec 2006 6:25PM
This should be a good thread, as I'm in the same boat. You sure are right about the hard earnt dosh.

PatrickSmith 12 1.2k 2 United States
8 Dec 2006 6:32PM
Well, if you use a tripod the IS will not help and will actually blur your images. Especially on longer exposures over 1/2 second. I have the 24-105L IS and I turn off the IS except for rare hand held shots. If you are hand holding and taking candid shots, then the f4 IS will more than make up for the loss of speed with the 2.8 one. However, if you want narrow DOF, get the 2.8. It you want it light, get the f4. There are just a bunch of tradeoffs here.

I will eventually get the 2.8 with no IS. But I do landscapes on a tripod.

webby962 11 128 1 United Kingdom
21 Dec 2006 7:29PM
well, I've taken the plunge. I've opted for the 70mm-200mm L2.8 non IS.
The extra speed, and option to use a 2x extender swung it for me.
As for the weight issue, well, i'm used to carring weight, so I traded that for the DOF and speed gain.
ZenTog 15 7.9k 1 England
21 Dec 2006 7:32PM
dont buy the 2x convertor buy the 1.4 it works much better
webby962 11 128 1 United Kingdom
21 Dec 2006 7:34PM
Really? In what way is it better? I was told that there was little degridation using a converter, and it still maintained autofocus etc... Is it a quality issue, or focus speed issue? I wouldn't want to waste 200 on the wrong one, although a trip to Jessops or LCE to try them first would be in order. Smile
ZenTog 15 7.9k 1 England
21 Dec 2006 7:41PM
I have used the mk11 2x convertor and a 70-200 non is for 0ver5 years now, on a lot of cameras it doesnt auto focus at all , even with a eos1dmk2n and a 600mm f4 is it leads to some softening of the image and auto focus sometimes works sometimes doesnt

on lesser dlsrs like the d60 it virtually wouldnt work and needed manual focus!!!

a 2x convertor is not a shortcut to a long lens but a comprimise

the1.4 works very well with most of the lenses includig the100-400
ZenTog 15 7.9k 1 England
21 Dec 2006 7:44PM
also take into consideration you will losev two stops of light with a 2x convertor, not a huge problem with a 2.8 but more problems with a f4 or 5.6

looking at what you want to do photographic wise I would go for a 17-40mm to open up backgrounds whilst getting close to targets
culturedcanvas 11 4.7k 59 United Kingdom
21 Dec 2006 8:47PM

Just to stick my nose in ... I'd go for the F4 is over the 2.8 non i.s

Paul is right about the convertors tho ... you will get some softening with the x2 but hardly any with the x1.4

The F4 is the new system and will work fine on the tripod with the IS activated. It will also offer upto 4 stops of stability whereas the old one offers only 2-3. I have the old F4 non IS as well as a number of other pieces of L glass. The older F4 is still a great lens, but i wouldnt even swa[ that for a 2.8 non IS ... the only thing that would tempt me would be the f2.8IS version.

Whichever you go for you are getting good glass .. remember that!

ZenTog 15 7.9k 1 England
21 Dec 2006 9:01PM
I have heard from some quarters Dan that the non is versions of the 70-200 2.8 have the edge on sharpness, I hav e the non is version and two of my togs have the is cant really see any difference myself either way. could certainly see the difference when one had a 2.8 sigma though!!!!

if you travel through hongkong buy one there, the price diffenrec between the uk is staggering orthe us is very well priced with the dollar being so low
culturedcanvas 11 4.7k 59 United Kingdom
21 Dec 2006 9:11PM

Quite a few people say the non i.s is sharper ... ive had both at various stages to play with and to be honest couldnt tell the difference on the examples i had .. then again I actually struggle to tell the difference in sharpness between the F4 and the F2.8.

Agree about the sigma generally but had a go with the F2.8 macro last week and it was actually very good! Not as sharp wide open as the canon but not too much in it.

ZenTog 15 7.9k 1 England
21 Dec 2006 9:28PM
I used a 180mm macro sigma to photograph a banana flower and it actually took a sharper pic than the 70-200 zoom probally though to it being a prime

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.