is it worth the difference

[Master Mason]

ObliO or anyone else that might know...

I am looking at the Cannon 70-200L series of lenses. I have pretty much decided that I don't need the IS as it will be mostly for sports and I am comfortable using a monopod, and for the price differential I don't see that it is worth it to me.

My questions are
1. I am torn between the f2.8 and the f4 versions. I read that both are good lenses, but obviously the 2.8 is a little better, and has the wider apeture. But is it really worth the extra $400 or so over the f4 version?

2. Am I totally off base with my discision about the IS above?

Thanks for the advice

 

[tigger795]

I don't shoot sports but here are my thoughts on your issue:

1. If you can COMFORTABLY afford IS, get it. You may be able to get more keepers, especially if you are panning, monopod or not. Since for sports you will probably be shooting at a high shutter speed, camera shake will be less apparent but can still affect the final product.

2. If you decide against IS then the faster f/2.8 lens will allow you to create properly exposed captures in a wider variety of shooting conditions, ie. outside in the evening or in a less than ideally lit gymnasium at a lower ISO than would otherwise be possible.

3. The 70-200mm f/4L (plain vanilla) is one of the best values for L glass if you can do without the extra aperture or IS.

Just my $0.02

 

[Anewman]

Night time football or other, 2.8 is a must.

If you slap on a 1.4x teleconverter you still end up with a 98-280 F3.8 lens, still usable(not optimal) at night. On the 4.0 version that teleconverter gives you a 98-280 F5.0 lens.

 

[timned88]

if you are shooting sports, you dont need IS. your shutter will be plenty fast enough that IS is a waste of money. if you were shooting at 1/30 sec or so, then IS would be useful.

if you had the 2.8 aperture, you gain an additional stop of shutter speed over the 4.0, which equates to one doubling of speed (1/60 at 2.8 vs. 1/30 at 4.0 = same exposure).

you are the only one who can answer this question as you are the one spending the money.

 

[0bli0]

i no longer have any lenses with IS. my DW still has the 28-135 IS. i'm still using my old 80-200 2.8L and if for some reason (touch wood) it died, i would get the 70-200 *non* IS to replace it. so you are right on track with your statement you won't need IS for sports.

F2.8 vs. F/4 - yes, it's only 1 stop difference. there are two big advantages to the 2.8 version.
-firstly the obvious: the 2.8 version will let you shoot at night. that one stop is the difference between say, for example - ISO 3200 or 1600 @ 1/400 second (depending on the lighing where you're watching the game) and the same ISO but half the shutter speed - 1/200. this means you're going to have motion blur and non-sharp photos which you won't be happy with.
-secondly, you can use a 1.4x teleconverter (or even a 2x, but i wouldn't recommend it) with a loss of 1 stop, but still have both the very good image quality *and* fast enough shutter speed to use at night in decently lit stadiums/fields. (btw a 1.4x teleconverter makes the aperture 5.6, not 5.0).
-thirdly, there are other minor advantages such as better bokeh - the out of focus areas to help separate the action from the background, and also using it @ 2.8 for portraits.
btw i recently picked up a new sports lens - the Sigma 120-300 2.8 EX

best of luck with your purchase. remember there are always shops that will rent you a copy of a lens, to help you decide.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Another reason for the f2.8 is that it's sharper at f4.0.

A reason for the f4.0 is that it's much smaller and lighter.

I also agree with the notion that you should get the IS if the dollars aren't that dear to you. It works extremely well. It won't help with action shots (except panning), but it has proven invaluable to me in many other situations.

 

[JR6ooo4]

But does not type II IS help while panning with the action? Does the 2.8 lens mentioned have the newr dual IS modes?

Mikeeee

 

[0bli0]

yes, the mode 2 setting is for panning. this is great for motorsports, but not very effective for team sport.

the series 2 IS lenses like the 70-200 will shut down the IS when mounted to a tripod.

 

[handicap18]

i no longer have any lenses with IS. my DW still has the 28-135 IS. i'm still using my old 80-200 2.8L and if for some reason (touch wood) it died, i would get the 70-200 *non* IS to replace it. so you are right on track with your statement you won't need IS for sports.

F2.8 vs. F/4 - yes, it's only 1 stop difference. there are two big advantages to the 2.8 version.
-firstly the obvious: the 2.8 version will let you shoot at night. that one stop is the difference between say, for example - ISO 3200 or 1600 @ 1/400 second (depending on the lighing where you're watching the game) and the same ISO but half the shutter speed - 1/200. this means you're going to have motion blur and non-sharp photos which you won't be happy with.
-secondly, you can use a 1.4x teleconverter (or even a 2x, but i wouldn't recommend it) with a loss of 1 stop, but still have both the very good image quality *and* fast enough shutter speed to use at night in decently lit stadiums/fields. (btw a 1.4x teleconverter makes the aperture 5.6, not 5.0).
-thirdly, there are other minor advantages such as better bokeh - the out of focus areas to help separate the action from the background, and also using it @ 2.8 for portraits.
btw i recently picked up a new sports lens - the Sigma 120-300 2.8 EX

best of luck with your purchase. remember there are always shops that will rent you a copy of a lens, to help you decide.

This is pretty much my thinking as well. While I do not yet have any version of thd 70-200 (or 80-200 on nikon's side) I am definately leaning towards the non VR (aka IS) version. It is a pretty significant savings number 1, and for the VR/IS I am going with the 70-300. While it is not as fast I plan on using the lenses for different reasons. Plus (on the Nikon side, I believe Canon's versions are a bit more expensive) I can get the 70-300 with VR AND the 80-200 f/2.8 for the same price as the 70-200 f/2.8 with VR.

Now if I hit the lottery for some big, large, super amount of money all bets are off.

 

[mhutchinson]

f/2.8 vs f/4.0

The f/2.8 advantage is that it will allow autofocus to work in situations that the f/4.0 will not and gain more photos without a flash. My f/4.0 has some issues focusing in dimmer situations like dusk or deep shadows under trees.

The f/4.0 advantage is it's size and weight make it so much easier to carry around than my f/2.8. As a result I tend to take my f/4.0 more often than the f/2.8.

Even though some tests may show the f/2.8 as sharper than the f/4.0, it is so neglegable I have not seen a difference in it that would sway me one way or the other. Either one will produce some really nice photos with good bokah.

Bottom line is lighter/smaller vs. faster. Or just get both and use them each for their strengths.

Mike

 

[Master Mason]

f
Bottom line is lighter/smaller vs. faster. Or just get both and use them each for their strengths.

Mike

If you saw my wifes jaw drop when I showed her what I wanted, you would know that that isn't an option....

 

[mhutchinson]

Jaw dropping??? You didn't show her the 1800mm at about $130K did you???

I have seen that a few times already from my wife, last time was not after my 24-105 arrived...but when I told her the price. Funny thing is she didn't seem to appreciate the fact it had a $50 rebate. I had thought for sure it would be a selling point.

Does this now mean the f/2.8 decission has been made??? Or just better influenced The f/4.0 is a great lens, as I said I tend to grab that one most of the time because the only real trade off I have seen is a little speed and at better than half the weight much nicer to carry as well.

Mike

 

[Master Mason]

Jaw dropping??? You didn't show her the 1800mm at about $130K did you???

I have seen that a few times already from my wife, last time was not after my 24-105 arrived...but when I told her the price. Funny thing is she didn't seem to appreciate the fact it had a $50 rebate. I had thought for sure it would be a selling point.

Does this now mean the f/2.8 decission has been made??? Or just better influenced The f/4.0 is a great lens, as I said I tend to grab that one most of the time because the only real trade off I have seen is a little speed and at better than half the weight much nicer to carry as well.

Mike

A friend of ours has the nikon equivalent to the 2.8.... he gave her a couple of pics of the kid playing football, she asked how come he had that nice blur in the back ground and you don't.... so that's when I showed her what I wanted and that it would be able to do that....

I don't think the decision will be compleatly made unitl I order it. but I am leaning strongly towards the 2.8. By the time you buy the hood and tripod mount that don't come with the 4.0, the difference isn't as larg as it seams.

 

[mhutchinson]

Be careful when 'thinking' about ordering. A friend of mine was on the B&H site with a half full cart and thought he'd hit the buy it now pay it later button just to see if he exceeded his credit line. Turns out if they approve you it just gets sent, no 'just kidding' or 'only checking' button

He had to explain away a 24-70 L f/2.8, 70-200 L f/2.8 IS, 580ex flash, and a couple extra little dream things to his wife when the box arrived.

Is true that by the time you add the extras on the cost does get closer, if you end up using them. As I recall though I think my f/4.0 came with the hood and lens bag, just not a tripod mount (like another $100). Good luck which ever way you lean, one other thought on the f/2.8. If you add a 1.4X teleconverter you will yield 98-280mm f/4.0 for just even a couple hundred more on top. Makes it better expandable in the future.

Mike

 

[Master Mason]

Well,

The story continues... I ordered my wifes Christmas present a month or so ago.... yesterday this box comes addressed to here, so she opens it up.... their went the christmas surprise.

so feeling a bit guilty about ruining my christmas surprise, she determined that I should just order the lens now so I can enjoy my christmas present early as she isn't taking her new ring off her finger....

so now rather than looking and wishing... I'll be ordering this weekend Now to decide on the 1.4x or 2.x extender.....

What a good wife I have

 

[0bli0]

personally, i'd recommend the 1.4x. the 2.0x causes the loss of 2 stops of light and can noticeably degrade the image.

if you have a camera shop near you that rents lenses, they will often have the teleconverters to try out. note that if you're thinking about using the TC, the Canon one only fits certain Canon lenses. you may also want to look at the Kenko Pro/Tamron SP Pro (white ones, not black ones). they are very close in image quality (using the same number of elements as the Canon) and they can be used on just about any lens.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

i'd recommend the 1.4x.

I'll second that. I have both and almost never use the 2.0x. The difference is pretty large.

 

[Master Mason]

Took your advice and went with the 1.4x....

I got the Canon version I am sure the others are good, but I have always been a stick with the same brand type of guy... all my AV equipement are sony... integration just seams to be easier for me that way...

 

[Master Mason]

So here are a couple of samples with the new lens..... only taken a handful yet....but wow...