Thoughts On - Canon lens. Canon EF 70-200mm

[grimm]

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is a lightweight, compact L Series telephoto zoom lens with Image Stabilizer. With all the optical brilliance of the larger f/2.8 aperture version, the 70-200mm f/4L is a zoom lens with great possibilities for portraiture and travel. All of the features of the bigger lens are present here as well, including ultra-low dispersion glass, internal focus and fulltime manual focusing override.

The optical Image Stabilization in this lens provides up to an incredible four stops of shake correction - a first for Canon IS lenses. The use of fluorite UD lens elements provides excellent optical performance in terms of resolution and contrast. These features, together with its water and dust-proof construction, provide both the performance and portability to meet user demands.


what are peoples thoughts. I'm thinking of picking this up soon, like tomorrow.

Key Features

• Image Stabilizer
4 step Image Stabilizer (IS) extends low light options to previously unavailable levels. Photographers normally shooting handheld at 1/250 sec can switch on IS to obtain a similarly steady and blur-free result with a shutter speed of just 1/15 second.

• 2 IS Modes:

Mode 1 corrects for movement in the image along both the horizontal and vertical axes
Mode 2 turns off vertical correction and prevents the effect of dragging the subject back through the frame

• 1 Fluorite and 2 UD lens elements for superior optical performance

• Environmental seals for dust and moisture resistance

• To match the weather resistance afforded by EOS-1 pro camera bodies, an O-ring seals the lens against the lens mount to prevent the ingress of dust and moisture

• AF Mode and IS switches have been reshaped, making them less susceptible to being engaged or disengaged accidentally

• Fully compatible with Canon tele-converters

[grimm]

no one has anything to say? sheeit this is a baller lens, and I'm just debating on wheather or not I need something that baller... I mean I could get three other lenses for the price of the one, but if this one is soo good, who needs others? someone please tell me something, yes good, no bad.. I got lots of loot and need to decide how to spend it TODAY!!!

[Spocknasty]

Would you rather take a Porsche 911 GT3 to the track, or three Civics?

If you are going to NEED the IS, then go for it.

[grimm]

Good way to put it...

not sure if i need IS. but I do take a lot of low light setting pics, so it would be helpful. And it definitely wouldn't be an obtrusive feature?

haha it's hard for me to take a plunge on a piece of glass that cost as much as a swap.

[grimm]

I guess everyone thinks this is a great lens?

[jspek]

i think 90% of the people who shoot use nikons. ask chris pa. he shoots with canon.

[goodfella732]

I know nothing about lens, still using the kit one that came with the camera but jesus thats one sick piece of glass. If you can afford it why not? If you got the need for IS I say buy it.

[i like rice]

Might as well spend the extra on the 70 200 f/2.8L IS. Get one used for $1400. One extra stop is worth it.

[US_R33]

i heart my 70-300MM IS lens

[grimm]

I'm somewhat limited to vendors. B&H Photo. The 2.8 lens is $626 more then the 4. (new) Not that it's all too much of a real concern but... This $1600 lens is going to be attached to a $800 camera? it's hard to justify, granted some time in the future i'm sure i will upgrade cameras, and canon has been loyal to the ef lens for quite some time now, but...it's a lot of loot yo...i'm going

edit:
i know i will love this lens...

[i like rice]

Hold out for the Canon rebates - twice a year (spring and fall). How often do you plan on changing to a different telephoto zoom lens? Not often, so you'll keep this lens for several years.

The difference in shooting at 2.8 versus 4.0 is noticeable when you're trying to create separation from the focal point and the background. Plus, IS won't do you any good for motion blur. You'll need to use a larger aperture to keep shutter speeds high under low light conditions. To get shutter speeds of 1/250 or faster indoors @ 2.8, you'll need ISO 1600 or 3200. Any way, I'm rambling.

[grimm]

Funny as it may sound holding out isn't really too much of an option either. I'm basically taking payment for some work in trade for equipment. So it needs to happen sooner rather then later.

I'm still slightly on the fence about this lens. Not that I don't think i will like it, but just more that it could be WAY over kill for my abilities at the moment. But I've always had the frame of mind to get something and work up to it's abilities, instead of getting somehting that is at the same ability as I am. (if that makes sense) ahh shucks.. I just need to decide... I like rice, do you have any other suggestions for something comprable, or an over all better value for the money? ie a telephot, macro, ??? all equaling about the same $1500?

[i like rice]

if you don't plan on doing a lot of low light shots or you don't mind using a tripod, go with the 70-200 4.0L non IS ($600 new, 450 used). Most will use this and eventually step up to the 70-200 f/2.8L when funds are available. IMO the 4.0L IS isn't worth the money.

If you want macro on a budget, look into extension tubes. If you really want a macro lens, the Canon or Tamron 90 or 100mm lenses are two affordable ($300-400) macro lenses worth looking at.

[grimm]

So i've been looking at getting more for my money, so I these are what I have my eye on now.
Hoya
58 mm Introductory Filter Kit - Ultraviolet (UV), Circular Polarizer, ...
MFR #GIK58GB • B&H #HOFIK58

Our Price: Sub Total: Quantity: Remove:
$54.95 $ 54.95

Hoya
77 mm Introductory Filter Kit - Ultraviolet (UV), Circular Polarizer, ...
MFR #GIK77GB • B&H #HOFIK77

Our Price: Sub Total: Quantity: Remove:
$109.95 $ 109.95


Canon USA
Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens
MFR #2569A004 • B&H #CA7020028LEF

Our Price: Sub Total: Quantity: Remove:
$1,140.00 $ 1,140.00


Sigma USA
Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-70mm f/2.8-4 DG Compact High Speed Zoom ...
MFR #634101 • B&H #SI287028DCA

Our Price: Sub Total: Quantity: Remove:
$129.00 $ 129.00

commets/suggestions

[97TurboDSM]

bringing this one back because i'm in the market for a 70-200 and im trying to figure out if the F2.8 is worth it over the F4. On the 17-40 i have, i wish i would have gone down to F2.8. I will be going with an IS version of the 70-200 so im wondering if the 2.8 will be necessary. I'm going to be using it for soccer outdoors at night and other sports as well. just would like some opinions

[RichK]

First off, I shoot with Nikon gear, but I can offer you my opinion. I would definitely go with the Canon 2.8 glass. I use my Nikon 70-200 wide open at 2.8 and the bokeh is just awesome. You will also appreciate it when it comes to shooting fast shutter speeds in crappy light (rainy days, early AM or PM). The IS, similar to Nikon's VR, has its place. It does come in handy when shooting in low light. I can shoot at 1/20 of a sec at 200mm and get tack sharp images. One thing to remember with IS or VR though, and it is important to keep it in mind. It will not help with freezing action in low light. The only thing that works there is shutter speed, and that is where the 2.8 will be a huge advantage.

As far as third party lenses, they can be quite good. I know I really like my Tokina 12-24 on my D2x. It is very sharp and renders great colors and contrast. That is the only third party lens I own. I considered a Sigma when I was looking for a 300mm prime, but I went with the Nikon 300 2.8 because of its stellar reputation and outstanding image quality.

Also, search the web for reviews of the lenses you are thinking about. Take them for what they are worth, an opinion. Try to find sample images from the lens you want as well. THis can be helpful when it comes to seeing the capabilities (and disadvantages) of a particular lens.

[97TurboDSM]

The only concern I have at this point is the huge price difference between the F4 and F2.8. Thats a lot of scratch to bury on a lens. I'm being a cheap ass but i guess i'll most likely go with the 2.8, maybe bypassing the IS to save some money. we'll see.

[97TurboDSM]

maybe a better question, is the IS really worth paying for? 2.8L Non-IS is the same price, essentially as the 4L IS. Thoughts? I'll be using the lens for sports so IS isnt going to help me anyway, just not sure if I can justify the extra $5-- for IS although I've seen what it can do.

[i like rice]

2.8 IS is worth every penny. If it was $1k extra I'd still drop the extra coin for it.

[97TurboDSM]

well chances are you would be less financially hurt by that extra $1k. i'm also intrigued by another lens, the 200 f2.8. thoughts on that vs the 70-200?