Which lens for canon SLR??

[maged_mmh]

dear canon SLR users:
need advice on making up my mind for a canon lens for my SLR camera (1.6 sensor size), here what I found:

* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens

Least price is for the F/4 one without IS, but the f/2.8 IS has it all and seems overly priced and heavy in weight (and i heard that it is not equally as sharp as the f/4 or its non-IS version).

My uses for this lens will be for outdoor/landscape/wildlife and maybe for portraits.

Since I have a relatively shaky hand, I favor the IS versions (pricey); but I do have a decent tripod.

My question is: is the f-number worth the money? (brighter pictures?)

Thanks!

 

[alcina]

The IS is definitely worth the money if you will be shooting in conditions that warrant it - low light in particular.

The 2.8 is definitely worth the money if you need the extra stops - low light again and also creamy backgrounds for serious portrait work (although the f4 is still quite nice). The 2.8 IS is a beast, so be ready for that. I didn't even take mine on my recent holiday - the weight and bulk just weren't worth it.

If you are fairly confident that you will be doing most of your shooting in good light to allow reasonable shutters, apertures and ISO settings, then go with the f4...nothing but good news on this lens. As you said you have kind of shakey hands, I would spring for the IS version as it is a saviour in many situations, even in relatively good light.

This isn't really a walk-around lens; if you are looking for something like that there are lots of other options that will likely be better suited for your needs and wallet.

Head over to POTN and look through the forums there and then ask your question - the members can be a bit harsh sometimes, but I've found the majority are really happy to help!

Oh, and if you can wait, there will probably be fall rebates out in October

 

[maged_mmh]

thanks alcina; i understand that these lenses are enormous & heavy; but to draw a line (let me consider just the IS versions):
the 2.8 lens will render good bokeh backgrounds, still twice as heavy and pricey over the f/4, wonder is that will go with my D450?? with nearly 1.6Kg definitely it is not for a stroll on the beach

OTOH, f/4, as per canon dealer, has 4 IS stops (whereas f/2.8 has 3) - not a big deal when on tripod; but worth considering for upward shootings?!
relatively lighter (700g?) but does not come with tripod ring included?

thanks for the tip about Oct rebates!

 

[ryssyr]

i like the 10-22mm EF wide angle. it can focus as close as 9inches. I just got a housing for my canon 3 weeks ago and started taking shots recently with this lens. It does fantastic wide angle shots, and respectable macro with the close focus distance. (you just have to get real close)

edit: I just read your uses...

out of water the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is a great choice. I have the 70-300 IS DO (diffractive optics lens)

it takes up less space and is easier to travel with. Its not that pro white finish though. (I like that its less conspicuous)

 

[bladephotog]

Ok, I disagree about the 2.8 not being a walk around lens. I walk around with mine daily. 99% of everything I shoot topside is with either my 16-35 or 70-200. They are my standard lenses. I have the non-IS version but wish we'd get the IS ones. If you can afford it I'd go for the IS version. If not, and you're not worried about shooting sports where you need a faster shutter speed, get the f4 IS version.

IS won't replace a faster shutter speed when it comes to stopping action. So if you're shooting sports you might want either of the 2.8 versions. As a standard rule, when shooting sports, you need a minimum of 1/250th of a second to stop action. Having a 2.8 lens is necessary in low light.

But if this isn't a concern the f4 would be a great lens. It's lighter and only one stop slower.

 

[alcina]

I should have thought - if you love this range, check out Sigma's 50-150 2.8 and their 70-200 2.8 zoom.

I have the 50-150 and I adore it. It's way lighter, still fast, very nice IQ and black so it doesn't scream steal me.

A friend has the 70-200 and he adores it. Shoots all sorts of indoor music stuff (for pay) with it and says it never misses.

Added bonus, both of these are cheaper than the Canons

 

[maged_mmh]

been there!
actually the reason i'm looking for canon is that i sent back the sigma 50-150 for a full refund as it had a focusing problem. i'll never consider anything but canon from now on.

 

[alcina]

That's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction LOL

All mfgs get lenses sent back for various problems.

I have multiple Sigmas and Canons and have been lucky enough to never have to send anything back yet, but I know lots of people who have sent back lenses from each for calibration - and probably more Canon ones (of course most of those I know have more Canon lenses in their lineups so the odds are that more will be sent back, I guess).

By throwing the bath water out with the baby, you'll miss out on some excellent glass (such as the Tokina 10-17 fisheye, for example). But each to their own, do what makes you feel comfortable.