Help me decide on which lens please (70-200)

[MorganK]

I'm buying a Canon 70D.

I plan to get a 35mm f/2 and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.

What I'm hung up on is the 70-200mm.

Either the f/4 or f/2.8. There is about a $500 price difference. Is the 1.2 difference enough to justify the $500?

I mostly just shoot my kids in school performances, sports, etc (and of course our Disney trips about 3x a year!) and prefer natural light vs any flash. Many times I've been dissatisfied with how my previous lenses have performed indoors (I had a Sony A57 with the 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 and before that I shot with a Nikon D90 but can't remember the zoom lens long story short the D90 took a swim in a river and I jumped to Sony and have been dissatisfied.)

The f/4 is going to be an improvement over the previous ones, but I'm hesitant to go for it and maybe I should do the extra for the 2.8? Any thoughts/suggestions would be great thanks!

 

[YesDear]

From your description of what you shoot you will be disappointed with the F4

The speed difference will make the shots you want probable. The rest is up to your skills!

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

The most expensive lens is the one you have to upgrade! I started with cheapies, but over time I got better and better glass, I still have all the cheapies in a drawer in my workshop.....

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I agree that from what you describe, that you would be disappointed with the f4 and that the 2.8 is the only way to go. I use 2.8 lenses the majority of the time and I do use flash extensively! The better lenses are not always needed, but they sure make things easier.

 

[mom2rtk]

The most expensive lens is the one you have to upgrade! I started with cheapies, but over time I got better and better glass, I still have all the cheapies in a drawer in my workshop.....

OP, have you considered the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8? I had the older version without OS and just recently upgraded to the version with OS.

I toiled with getting this versus a 70-200 of some sort. But I really just like having the 20 extra mm on the wide ened. It makes it a more usable lens for me, especially since I can always crop in more if needed.

Let us know what you get and what you think of it. I have only had the new 50-150 out once but was really happy with how sharp it was, even wide open at 2.8.


IMG_2682 by mom2rtk, on Flickr

 

[mom2rtk]

The most expensive lens is the one you have to upgrade! I started with cheapies, but over time I got better and better glass, I still have all the cheapies in a drawer in my workshop.....

Witness the fact that I just upgraded my 50-150. In my defense though, it wasn't available at the time with OS.

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

Upgrading for me is kinda pointless lol, I have the Pentax DA* 50-135 f2.8 its a fantastic lens and on a crop sensor equals the FF 70-200. I don't want to sell it because I use it when its raining and snowing out due to its weather sealing. However I wanted more reach for recitals and also bought a 70-200 f2.8, I wont sell that because of its reach lol... I'm doomed! I haven't used the 70-200 in nearly 3 months...

 

[mom2rtk]

Upgrading for me is kinda pointless lol, I have the Pentax DA* 50-135 f2.8 its a fantastic lens and on a crop sensor equals the FF 70-200. I don't want to sell it because I use it when its raining and snowing out due to its weather sealing. However I wanted more reach for recitals and also bought a 70-200 f2.8, I wont sell that because of its reach lol... I'm doomed! I haven't used the 70-200 in nearly 3 months...

I'm trying to decide whether to sell my non-IS 50-150. I really should, but it's a lot smaller and lighter than the one with OS. I can see where sometimes I might prefer to carry that one. But I really did want the one with OS for low light situations. I just want them all!

Oh, and I could totally see getting the 70-200 one day too. I do want the extra reach. But for the time being it was just far more important to have that extra width. It makes it a much more usable lens to me.

 

[Frantasmic]

For some indoor performances (auditoriums, gyms, etc.) even 2.8 doesn't always cut it. If you get a 70-200 2.8, you will probably enjoy it for the most part.

For gyms and auditoriums, you may want to look at a few primes: the 85mm f1.8 is great indoors, but you have to be closer a lot of the times. The 135mm f2.0 is also awesome indoors.

Here is a sample from the 70-200 f4.0 non IS, just in case you want to still consider it. It is a decent lens, but you have to increase the ISO somewhat. With a 70D, it may be better than the XSi used here. Taken at 1/80 f4.0 ISO 400 200mm:


Choir_Winter_Concert_09 105 by msf61, on Flickr

Same basic setup (ISO is only 200) but as you can see, stage lighting plays a part:


SPLS Musical 2010 064 by msf61, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

In fairness to your Sony, most of your disappointment is probably due to the lens, lol.

Regardless of brand... The jump from a 6.3 aperture to 4 is nice... But 2.8 is much nicer. It may only be 1 stop, but that can me a make or break difference in low light.

But there is another consideration beyond price. The 70-200/2.8 is huge--- much bigger than the 4. So while you will get better low light performance with the 2.8.... In "ordinary" situations you may feel overly encumbered by the heavy 2.8, when the smaller and lighter 4 would have done just as well. I believe the 2.8 lens is about twice the weight.

 

[PrincessInOz]

I would second what havoc pointed out.

If you are going to stay with the Canon lens, I recommend you find a shop where you can go in and put both lenses on the 70D. Then walk around for a bit with the lens. The f/2.8 is heavy.

You didn't mention it...but both those lenses come with the IS vs non IS versions.

For me, I found the f/2.8 too heavy and I opted for the f/4 IS version. As Frantasmic said, using a higher ISO helps with the indoor stage things for kids.

 

[nbaresejr]

I would second what havoc pointed out.

If you are going to stay with the Canon lens, I recommend you find a shop where you can go in and put both lenses on the 70D. Then walk around for a bit with the lens. The f/2.8 is heavy.

You didn't mention it...but both those lenses come with the IS vs non IS versions.

For me, I found the f/2.8 too heavy and I opted for the f/4 IS version. As Frantasmic said, using a higher ISO helps with the indoor stage things for kids.

I will agree with the above. I am not the biggest or smallest person (5'9" 185) and the 2.8 IS was just too heavy for me to carry around. The f/4 IS on my t2i is balenced well and is not a problem to carry around by itself or more commonly with my entire collection (sigma 17-50, Sigma 10-20, Canon 430EXii and accessories)

 

[havoc315]

There are times I wish I had a 70-200 2.8. In the absolute most demand situations, I just don't think an f4 can match it. But even if I owned such a lens, I wouldn't get rid of my more standard telephoto zooms. Due to the weight issue, the 2.8 would sit in the closet and only come out for the occasions it's really needed.

My solution has actually been a 135/2.8 prime. As a prime, I get great image quality. And I can use it for a bit of telephoto reach. A fraction of the price, and a fraction of the weight of a 70-200 2.8 zoom. It can fit in a jacket pocket.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I shoot with a 70-200 f2.8 all the time. In fact, I'm sitting here looking at two of my primary DSLR's, one mounted with the 70-200 f2.8. Is the 2.8 version heavier? Of course it is, however its not about the weight, per se. It is about how you carry it. If you mount it on your camera and then use the standard neck strap, it will soon cause you great discomfort and you will never mount it again. Those types of lenses need balance. All my DSLR's have the vertical grips. I use the Black Rapid straps and attach my heavier lenses to the tripod mounting ring of the lens. The kit is then perfectly balanced. While yes it is heavier, however because of the correct balance you do not feel the weight as much. Many days I shoot in excess of 8 hours. While I get tired, the extra weight of the lenses is not really a factor.

 

[wiigirl]

I will agree with the above. I am not the biggest or smallest person (5'9" 185) and the 2.8 IS was just too heavy for me to carry around. The f/4 IS on my t2i is balenced well and is not a problem to carry around by itself or more commonly with my entire collection (sigma 17-50, Sigma 10-20, Canon 430EXii and accessories)

 

[mom2rtk]

I shoot with a 70-200 f2.8 all the time. In fact, I'm sitting here looking at two of my primary DSLR's, one mounted with the 70-200 f2.8. Is the 2.8 version heavier? Of course it is, however its not about the weight, per se. It is about how you carry it. If you mount it on your camera and then use the standard neck strap, it will soon cause you great discomfort and you will never mount it again. Those types of lenses need balance. All my DSLR's have the vertical grips. I use the Black Rapid straps and attach my heavier lenses to the tripod mounting ring of the lens. The kit is then perfectly balanced. While yes it is heavier, however because of the correct balance you do not feel the weight as much. Many days I shoot in excess of 8 hours. While I get tired, the extra weight of the lenses is not really a factor.

Something to keep in mind is that you shoot Pentax and don't have to use a lens with IS, which does add a lot of weight. I do absolutely agree with using the right strap though.

I also agree that size and weight are a factor. I won't be ditching my Tamron 18-270 any time soon because it's so dang small and light. I consider my 50-150 2.8 with OS to be a task oriented lens like others have said. But there are just instances where it gets the job done. And I'm in love with the photos I've taken with it so far. Oh, and my doctor says I need more weight-bearing exercise. So I'll be schlepping it into DL for Fantasmic and DCA for Aladdin. But the other days? It will stay in the room.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Something to keep in mind is that you shoot Pentax and don't have to use a lens with IS, which does add a lot of weight. I do absolutely agree with using the right strap though.

I also agree that size and weight are a factor. I won't be ditching my Tamron 18-270 any time soon because it's so dang small and light. I consider my 50-150 2.8 with OS to be a task oriented lens like others have said. But there are just instances where it gets the job done. And I'm in love with the photos I've taken with it so far. Oh, and my doctor says I need more weight-bearing exercise. So I'll be schlepping it into DL for Fantasmic and DCA for Aladdin. But the other days? It will stay in the room.

Not to be argumentative, but the difference in weight between the latest Canon 70-200 f2.8 and my Sigma is 3.52 oz. I totally understand that it is all in what you're used to carrying, however I wouldn't consider that 3.5 oz. as a lot of weight. Again, just because I use the 70-200 doesn't mean that I don't have lightweight alternatives when I want to go light. There are many times I pull off the grip, slap on the 18-55 and just shoot. If the OP wants to shoot sports in lowlight then a lens with the versatility of the 70-200 f2.8 would make things a lot easier.

 

[DoDaLeCa]

I shoot my daughters' dance recitals - no flash allowed at some.

With a 5D3 with reasonable high iso noise characteristics shooting f/2.8 and 1/320 to 1/500s shutter speed to freeze motion sometimes get me iso 6400 to approximately iso 9000 when kids are in low light sets or side of stage. Shooting f/4 with everything else same would get me iso 12800 or more which isn't something i would want to deal with on my crop (7D).

I'd get the f/2.8 as per the saying you can always make a fast lens slower but you can't make a slow lens faster. I've handheld Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS at near 3 kg so my 70-200 f/2.8 os seems light.

 

[PrincessInOz]

I shoot with a 70-200 f2.8 all the time. In fact, I'm sitting here looking at two of my primary DSLR's, one mounted with the 70-200 f2.8. Is the 2.8 version heavier? Of course it is, however its not about the weight, per se. It is about how you carry it. If you mount it on your camera and then use the standard neck strap, it will soon cause you great discomfort and you will never mount it again. Those types of lenses need balance. All my DSLR's have the vertical grips. I use the Black Rapid straps and attach my heavier lenses to the tripod mounting ring of the lens. The kit is then perfectly balanced. While yes it is heavier, however because of the correct balance you do not feel the weight as much. Many days I shoot in excess of 8 hours. While I get tired, the extra weight of the lenses is not really a factor.

Thanks for the tip! I wondered how everyone else managed. There is a school night performance coming up and the lady that shoots the performance has the Canon f/2.8 (the parents are not allowed to bring in cameras to these things). I found out that I know her husband (small world)....so if I she has a spare moment, I might just go have a chat with her and see how she does it. I'm not sure she has straps; but then again, I probably wasn't looking hard enough.

Hope you and the family have been well.

 

[mom2rtk]

Not to be argumentative, but the difference in weight between the latest Canon 70-200 f2.8 and my Sigma is 3.52 oz. I totally understand that it is all in what you're used to carrying, however I wouldn't consider that 3.5 oz. as a lot of weight. Again, just because I use the 70-200 doesn't mean that I don't have lightweight alternatives when I want to go light. There are many times I pull off the grip, slap on the 18-55 and just shoot. If the OP wants to shoot sports in lowlight then a lens with the versatility of the 70-200 f2.8 would make things a lot easier.

Wow, I'm really surprised by that. I just assumed the IS added more weight. I know when I went from the old non-IS to the new IS version of my Sigma 50-150, the weight jumped exponentially. It's a great lens, but I thought about that for well over a year before making the jump, mostly because of the added weight. It's still a smidge lighter than the 70-200 lenses though.

I shoot my daughters' dance recitals - no flash allowed at some.

With a 5D3 with reasonable high iso noise characteristics shooting f/2.8 and 1/320 to 1/500s shutter speed to freeze motion sometimes get me iso 6400 to approximately iso 9000 when kids are in low light sets or side of stage. Shooting f/4 with everything else same would get me iso 12800 or more which isn't something i would want to deal with on my crop (7D).

I'd get the f/2.8 as per the saying you can always make a fast lens slower but you can't make a slow lens faster. I've handheld Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS at near 3 kg so my 70-200 f/2.8 os seems light.

Ahhhh...... if only we could all shoot with at 5D. Sigh.

Thanks for the tip! I wondered how everyone else managed. There is a school night performance coming up and the lady that shoots the performance has the Canon f/2.8 (the parents are not allowed to bring in cameras to these things). I found out that I know her husband (small world)....so if I she has a spare moment, I might just go have a chat with her and see how she does it. I'm not sure she has straps; but then again, I probably wasn't looking hard enough.

Hope you and the family have been well.

I rented the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 with IS 2 years ago when our first son graduated High School. It really was a beast to carry. I rented it again this year when our second son graduated. But between graduations I had moved to a Black Rapid strap. The difference really was remarkable.