Lens face off opinions please!!!!

[dash's_dad]

Prepping for our trip to DW next year and my next big purchase is a lens.
I've got it narrowed down to 2:

Canon Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
vs.
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Obviously the L series is preferred, but I love the all-aroundness of the 18-200.

(As an aside, I'll definitely be adding the
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM as well, but not until later.)

Anyone have any input as to what they have/would chose?

ANY and ALL opinions welcome here!!!

 

[VVFF]

Prepping for our trip to DW next year and my next big purchase is a lens.
I've got it narrowed down to 2:

Canon Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
vs.
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Obviously the L series is preferred, but I love the all-aroundness of the 18-200.

(As an aside, I'll definitely be adding the
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM as well, but not until later.)

Anyone have any input as to what they have/would chose?

ANY and ALL opinions welcome here!!!

I can't tell from your post...do you already have a lens? Perhaps you have the kit lens? I'm just guessing that you have a rebel model.

If you have the 18-55mm I would still say get the 18-200mm. The 70-200mm F4 is difficult to control at longer focal lengths. I would say save up for the IS version as it has 4 stops compensation which makes a huge different at the 320mm equivalent focal length.

 

[dash's_dad]

currently i have the rebel kit lens, and the 50mm 1.8. Last time @ DW i borrowed a sigma 55-200, but it's definitely time to branch out with my own lenses.

 

[Shutterbug]

I can't tell from your post...do you already have a lens? Perhaps you have the kit lens? I'm just guessing that you have a rebel model.

If you have the 18-55mm I would still say get the 18-200mm. The 70-200mm F4 is difficult to control at longer focal lengths. I would say save up for the IS version as it has 4 stops compensation which makes a huge different at the 320mm equivalent focal length.

Depends if you think you will be wearing it around your neck all day. When you add IS to the lens it gets pretty heavy.

I do have the 70-200mm F4 and I love it. I had it attached to my 40D for the whole day at the Honda Indy 200 a few weeks back and I had no problems wearing it around my neck all day long. I'm not sure what you mean by control problems but I have had no problems focusing it at longer ranges.

As far as IS versions are concerned, IMO, IS only is beneficial with stationary subjects. If you are shooting moving objects it will not help.

Also price wise going from a non-IS f4 to a IS f4 doubles the price of the lens. Thats money that I can put to other uses.

My basic camera gig is my 40D, Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Canon 70-200 F4. I have found both of these to be very sharp lens'. If I have my camera, I always have my camera bag so its easy to have a lens with me.

 

[VVFF]

Depends if you think you will be wearing it around your neck all day. When you add IS to the lens it gets pretty heavy.

I do have the 70-200mm F4 and I love it. I had it attached to my 40D for the whole day at the Honda Indy 200 a few weeks back and I had no problems wearing it around my neck all day long. I'm not sure what you mean by control problems but I have had no problems focusing it at longer ranges.

As far as IS versions are concerned, IMO, IS only is beneficial with stationary subjects. If you are shooting moving objects it will not help.

Also price wise going from a non-IS f4 to a IS f4 doubles the price of the lens. Thats money that I can put to other uses.

The IS version adds 55 grams of weight. Perhaps you are thinking of the F2.8 version which weighs almost double?

You are correct that it will not help with moving objects. However, most of what I shoot telephoto are fairly stationary, enough to be considered it at least. Being able to take a shot with(lets say 3-stops of stabilization) the shutter speed at 1/40th a second as opposed to 1/320th a second is a big deal. One you need perfectly sunny conditions or to raise the ISO the other is pretty darn easy.

I agree that price is a impediment however, I believe this is one where the cost is justified. The 70-200mm F4 is a great lens that is only made better by the addition of IS. It'll have to be up to the OP to determine whether this advantage is worth it for him.

 

[Shutterbug]

You may be right that I might be thinking of the 2.8 version weight wise.

One you need perfectly sunny conditions

I have to disagree with this. In the past I have used mine for shooting fast moving cars at our autox events. Even on cloudy days I have used 100 ISO and still got good sharp shots. Yes if its extremely overcast, I will have to raise the ISO to maybe 200 or 400 but I still get pics without grain. I really dont see noise until I go up to 800 ISO.

I will agree with you that the OP will have to figure out what he plan's on shooting. IS will def come in handy if he plans on shooting stationary objects in low light.

Also I remembering reading..that the non-IS version has been found to be overall sharper than the IS version..I would have to find the links to back myself up on that one though..but I do remember reading that in a few places.

If the money is available and the need for IS is there, then probably yes the IS version is the way to go. For me the need was not there and part of the money I saved is going to an even longer lens. For the money I have found the F4 to be a very fantastic lens.

 

[dash's_dad]

for the purposes of the disney trip, stationary subjects will be the majority of the shots.

i'd like to take advantage of the zoom at places like school performances/sporting events for the kids outside of the trip, but I'll also be buying other lenses at some point.

 

[Frantasmic]

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2272461

Here's a thread discussing recent Canon lens discussions. Additionally, a post I have on that thread references two other threads discussing lens suggestions.

If you are considering the 18-200, I'd suggest PMing the poster who really enjoys her lens (in the referenced threads).

 

[boBQuincy]

There is no comparison between the two lenses, they are made for very different purposes. For optical quality, build quality, focus speed, lack of distortion. etc. the 70-200 is the clear choice. For convenience the 18-200 wins handily. It really depends on what is important.

A lightweight monopod is a lot less $$$ than IS and works about as well (and is effective for panning too). Don't be concerned about crop factor causing motion to have a greater effect, that is governed by magnification and for that purpose a 200mm is still a 200mm.

 

[jann1033]

A lightweight monopod is a lot less $$$ than IS and works about as well (and is effective for panning too).

my thoughts as well. although personally i've never really found it necessary to only use the 70-200 f4 in sunny conditions. if that were the case i'd never use it since it is pretty much constantly overcast where i live.
i have the same basic set up as shutterbug and i'm happy with it as well .

i like the idea of vacation type lenses like the 18-200 in theory but in practice i'd rather have a couple really sharp lenses and have to change occasionally than one not as sharp lens i can use all the time. i don't think there is a really good one as of yet ( from reviews i've read at least) so only you can decide if you mind a little softness less than you mind changing lenses.
to me changing lenses is really only a problem when i want to take an unexpected bird or something outdoors and have the short lens on. for someplace like WDW you can really pretty much know before hand what type of photo you will be taking( ie animals at AK vs something you want a wider angle( ie a landmark type shot) for so i don't really think for me the lens changing would be a big deal there. but softness really bothers me probably abnormally so