Canon 70-200 f/4L Dilemma

[pikers]

I've been looking at getting one of these for a while now and I found a good deal on a used one (non IS version) that's in great shape. Has anyone had experience with this lens? Everything I've read leads me to believe this is a great lens but most people say save up for the f/2.8 or the f/4 IS. I'd love either one of those, but they are more than double the price of the f/4 non IS.

I'll mostly be using this for landscape/urban photography and the occasional wedding. I know the IS would help in poor lighting situations with the wedding, but is it really worth more then twice the price of the standard f/4 lens? Does anyone have any sample shots from a non IS f/4?

[inkista]

If you want sample shots, go to pbase.com/cameras or pixel-peepers.com (which is pulling off Flickr tagging). There really isn't a helluva lot to choose image quality wise betwen the four 70-200 Ls. The difference is in cost/size/weight and (mainly) usability.

You are, however, slightly deluding yourself if you think you can shoot available light with a 70-200 f/4 non-IS lens. Or that IS will always help you out in lower light.

I have a 24-105 f/4L IS USM that is often not fast enough for available light shooting, because of the f/4 maximum aperture. Given that 70-200 is an even longer focal length, and thus has a tighter 1/focal_length shutter speed requirement to eliminate camera shake, think of it this way: @200mm, you're limited to f/4 and you have to get your shutter speed to 1/200s. This is not easily achieved indoors, especially if you're thinking of not using an external flash. This is why the f/2.8 lens is so highly prized.

Secondly, IS is similar to using a monopod or tripod: it can help you eliminate camera shake at lower shutter speeds. But you're still using lower shutter speeds. You can't freeze subject action that way. Again, only a higher iso or a larger max. aperture is gonna help you get that faster shutter speed. I can't tell you the number of times I barely scraped by with enough available light with my 135 f/2 (which has two stops over an f/4 lens).

If you really want the 70-200 to be an available light lens, the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS is the one you want.

My personal recommendation would be to consider whether or not the EF 85mm f/1.8, EF 100 f/2 USM, or EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus and running backwards and forwards a lot might not be a better fit. Or, if you're willing to spend some serious dough and want more reach, the 135L or 200L.

[LoveDSLR]

It is hard to find an affordable lens that is good for everything. 70-200 f/4 L is good for landscape on a tripod while the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is better for weddings.

I have a 70-200 f/4 L IS to complement my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. However, I also have a 50-150 f/2.8 (cropped) when I need a fast but a lighter zoom lens.

[pikers]

Thanks for your reply inkista!

Yeah, the f/2.8 IS really is the best choice here. Sadly, it's not the best choice for my budget :-)

I've head GREAT things about the 85mm f/1.8 and I've considered getting this...but I really need to add something longer to my setup. I have the 50mm f/1.8 and I LOVE it. I usually use this guy for portraits and when lighting gets tough...the best $80 I've ever spent. It took some time to get used to a prime lens, but the results have been worth it.

I'm going to test out the 70-200 f/4 to see what it's like. I'm not sure how serious I am about weddings yet. If I start to do more of them, I may drop the 50mm for the 85mm.

[inkista]

I'd say find a used 135mm f/2.8 soft focus. It won't be the 135L, but the Fred Miranda reviews on the lens rock. Searching on eBay puts it in the $250 price range. You can see sample images from Flickr on pixel-peeper.com.

[andrewdt]

I was really sure I wanted the 70-200 IS 2.8, and I could not justify the cost. I hung on a while, and found a really good deal on a used one. The date code puts it as one of the first produced by Canon (end-2001), but it is well looked after. The owner knew that while they hold their value, such an older model would have to go much cheaper.

Yes it is not the same as new but is absolutely fantastic, and I am so glad I did wait for it to come up. I did borrow the f4 non IS to play with, and the issue of available light makes it virtually unusable indoors. That said, with good light it is a very sharp and nice lens nonetheless.

[CaptainNH]

Pikers, it's a dilemma that everyone goes through when they look at upgrading to "pro"-glass.

My suggestion to you is to have a hard think about the types of photos you are going to be taking - specifically, the number of weddings you're likely to shoot.

As others have said, an f/4 just isn't going to do it if the weddings you do are like mine, low available light. For this you'll need an f/2.8 or faster.

If a 70-200 f2.8 is out of reach, this doesn't mean the end of the search. I'd suggest you consider the 85mm f/1.8 - a fantastically sharp low-light lens for the price.

As a comparison, one of these images was shot with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, the other with an 85mm f/1.8 - both in horrible 80% candlelit wedding receptions (how to I keep getting them ). Can you spot which is which?




If you're keen on the f/4 for landscapes (and I agree it would be a great lens for you in this role) - think about hiring a f/2.8 for the odd wedding you do. If you can stretch to both the f/4 and the 85mm, then you're set.

[The b&w is taken with the 85mm f/1.8, the colour with the f/2.8]