Canon 70-200mm F4 IS or Canon 70-200mm F2.8 non-IS

[avsquare]

How many kilo will it be???? 2.4kg???? :think::bigeyes:

Weight is just a secondary issue.. now to make a telephoto at F1.4.. how big must the glass be? :bsmilie:

Size is a bigger issue.. and I wonder what filter thread will it use? 100mm? :bsmilie:

 

[chengpenguin]

Weight is just a secondary issue.. now to make a telephoto at F1.4.. how big must the glass be? :bsmilie:

Size is a bigger issue.. and I wonder what filter thread will it use? 100mm? :bsmilie:

You can look at 200mm F2L IS USM to do an estimation...Haha. Probably twice it's size?

 

[avsquare]

You can look at 200mm F2L IS USM to do an estimation...Haha. Probably twice it's size?

200L IS is a monster :bsmilie:

2x of it?

I think Canon may have to drop the IS to make it smaller :bsmilie:

 

[chengpenguin]

200L IS is a monster :bsmilie:

2x of it?

I think Canon may have to drop the IS to make it smaller :bsmilie:

200mm f/1.4 but drop IS? Then it has to use a video tripod liao.

 

[avsquare]

200mm f/1.4 but drop IS? Then it has to use a video tripod liao.

but 200mm f/1.4 with IS is going to be a big cannon (CANON LOL).. I think also need a tripod or monopod :bsmilie:

 

[Errz]

OT liao :bsmilie:

for 70-200mm F4 IS , if use with Extender EF 1.4xIII ..any problem with the AF/etc?

 

[avsquare]

OT liao :bsmilie:

for 70-200mm F4 IS , if use with Extender EF 1.4xIII ..any problem with the AF/etc?

Canon website says it's compatible.. so should be no problem.

 

[Errz]

Canon website says it's compatible.. so should be no problem.

ok. might get the F4 instead of F2.8.

F2.8 toooooooo ex and its not going to be used very very freq.

 

[avsquare]

ok. might get the F4 instead of F2.8.

F2.8 toooooooo ex and its not going to be used very very freq.

yup. F2.8 IS ver 2 is very very expensive
can't make myself buy it.. not a primary lens to use either.. unless it's for business use and it fetches me money

 

[5now5torm]

yup. F2.8 IS ver 2 is very very expensive
can't make myself buy it.. not a primary lens to use either.. unless it's for business use and it fetches me money

This is exactly why I cant bring myself to buying the f2.8 IS :/

 

[MechaEd]

This is exactly why I cant bring myself to buying the f2.8 IS :/

I think it depends on how you shoot.

I spent a 10 day trip in Hokkaido with the 70-200 f2.8 as my primary lens. I ended up only using my Sigma 8-16 for a few ultra wide shots and consigned the Sigma 30 1.4 to my luggage.

 

[avsquare]

I think it depends on how you shoot.

I spent a 10 day trip in Hokkaido with the 70-200 f2.8 as my primary lens. I ended up only using my Sigma 8-16 for a few ultra wide shots and consigned the Sigma 30 1.4 to my luggage.

yup - if the telephot range is not the range that you shoot primarily, the lens is likely to sit in your dry cabi more than anything else.. so for people like that, they may be less willing to buy a expensive lens of that range.

 

[G-man]

Might I suggest renting first if you can afford the time to plan ahead. That will give an idea of whether you like the lens or not. Trying in the shop is one thing, bringing it out for real shoots might change your perspective.

 

[2evans]

Renting and trying out is a good way to see which would suit you better. Since you like to shoot with available light indoors, you may find that you need a larger aperture or get a 5dmk3...

 

[5now5torm]

Besides renting, are there any 3rd party 70-200mm f2.8 with VC/OS ie: sigma tamron?

 

[MechaEd]

Besides renting, are there any 3rd party 70-200mm f2.8 with VC/OS ie: sigma tamron?

Yep. Sigma's has IS but Tamron's doesn't.

 

[5now5torm]

Thanks for all the kind replies everyone. In the end I went ahead with the f4 version because when I tested the f2.8 with IS, it was very heavy, under indoor lighting conditions the difference in shutter speed between f4 and f2.8 is minimal (from ISO 1600-3200) no doubt the bokeh effect is there but I cant hold the lens steady enough to get decent shots. Much less the non is version. The f4 version was lighter and I could keep it steady enough (with the help of is) to take decent shots at 200mm 1/4s

 

[G-man]

Thanks for all the kind replies everyone. In the end I went ahead with the f4 version because when I tested the f2.8 with IS, it was very heavy, under indoor lighting conditions the difference in shutter speed between f4 and f2.8 is minimal (from ISO 1600-3200) no doubt the bokeh effect is there but I cant hold the lens steady enough to get decent shots. Much less the non is version. The f4 version was lighter and I could keep it steady enough (with the help of is) to take decent shots at 200mm 1/4s

Congratulations on your new purchase.

 

[gunston]

non IS, it would be difficult for zooming in in long distance.

 

[glbong42]

I have 17-55mm first then after few weeks I bought 10-22mm too. My reason is that, I love to shoot landscape more than portraits. It was useful when I went to hong kong last January. How I wish I have had that UWA when I went to europe last year because I shot a lot of sceneries than people there using another lens(15-85).

But I am now saving to buy the 70-200 f4 IS to have me cover all the scenarios(landscape, general purpose, portrait). I made a lot of research and found myself leaning towards the f4 than the 2.8 non IS version because the f4 is lighter(not to say that the extra stops you're getting on version f2.8 maybe not as good of having an IS on f4 version. Besides, the f4 apperture is sharper than the f2.8 apperture but not as good bokeh).

So all-in-all, you're decision about getting the zoom lens first over the UWA will depend on the type of shooting you think you're going to do.