Canon Lens Dilemma

[Travis Nunn]

I'm looking to buy a zoom lens for my Canon 35mm. I've been trying to decide whether the 70-200 f/4 L or the f/2.8 L would be the way to go. I'm not interested in the IS versions of either. I've been leaning towards the f/4 because the f2/8 is almost double the price of the f/4.

I've been doing a little research and have come across the older 80-200 f/2.8 but I don't know much about this lens. I can get a used 80-200 f/2.8 for about the same price as a new 70-200 f/4.

A friend of mine has the f/4 and she loves it, although she can't really tell me why she thinks so highly of it. I need someone with experience with one or both to give me a little insight on these two lenses.

 

[jhsymington]

The f4 is an absolute jewel with top notch image quality and it's light and well made too. Unless that extra stop is very useful to you (it never was to me) you will love the f4.

 

[BobbyR]

I'm looking to buy a zoom lens for my Canon 35mm. I've been trying to decide whether the 70-200 f/4 L or the f/2.8 L would be the way to go. I'm not interested in the IS versions of either. I've been leaning towards the f/4 because the f2/8 is almost double the price of the f/4.

I've been doing a little research and have come across the older 80-200 f/2.8 but I don't know much about this lens. I can get a used 80-200 f/2.8 for about the same price as a new 70-200 f/4.

A friend of mine has the f/4 and she loves it, although she can't really tell me why she thinks so highly of it. I need someone with experience with one or both to give me a little insight on these two lenses.

If you are speaking of the early Canon zoom F2.8 often referred to as the "'magic stove-pipe" get it, it is a much sought after item.

 

[Travis Nunn]

If you are speaking of the early Canon zoom F2.8 often referred to as the "'magic stove-pipe" get it, it is a much sought after item.

That would be the one I'm speaking of.

I guess I'd just like to know of any benefits of getting this one over the f/4 (other than being 1 stop faster).

 

[Neil Souch]

Hi,

What do you want to use the lens for??? The f4 version is a cracker and wonderful for landscape work where the lighter weight over the f2.8 makes it easier to carry around in your bag. I purchased a used one and wife wife borrowed it, she liked it so much she also purchased one and carries it every where. But if you feel the f2.8 f stop is more suited to what you want to do go for the f 2.8. To sum up: the f4 is as good as the f2.8 but lighter and cheaper - buy it if you don't need f2.8 and you won't be disappointed.

Cheers,
Neil.

 

[PhotoJim]

I'm a Nikon shooter, but I'm gradually getting over the Nikon-Canon rivalry as most of our questions are the same, and film is film, right?

f/2.8 zooms of this range are huge and heavy. However, they have some inescapable advantages:
- they will let you shoot in light where you can't use an f/4 lens
- they will give you greater control over depth of field (particularly at the longer end, where the extra stop lets you blur the background significantly more)

I'd suggest getting the f/4 only if size and weight are a huge concern. I find my 80-200/2.8 Nikon (also the first generation of this lens) to be worth carrying around cities and such. If I go on long hikes I tend to take my manual-focus 80-200/4.5 instead, purchased exactly for that purpose. You could get an f/4-5.6 lens cheaply to use where size and weight are a huge concern if you don't want to carry the f/2.8 all the time.

If, on the other hand, you think the size and weight would be a big deal, you may be happier with the f/4.

I find f/2.8 versus f/4 makes a big difference, so the size and weight are worth it for me. I can live with a slight loss in quality if I absolutely can't or won't carry the big lens.

 

[Kvistgaard]

I have owned an F4 since autumn 2000, and continue to be very happy indeed with it, for reasons already mentioned + it does not look as intimidating (if that is the word) as the 2.8 when shooting among other people. I can't really see any reason to buy the 2.8, unless you really want or need that extra stop of light (the F4 + a monopod is a quite good solution if you need shake-free images). Make sure you get the tripod collar as well if you buy the lens secondhand - a new one is quite expensive.

 

[Travis Nunn]

Thanks for the input everyone. That extra stop is really desirable for me. It would mainly be used out doors, but I do occasionally shoot some music gigs. The 2.8 would be nice for that. I already have a 28-70 f/2.8L and I don't think

I don't mind the weight (I regularly hike 4-8 miles with my Mamiya RB67 gear). My main concern was not knowing much about the 80-200, but after reading comments here and doing a little more research I find that this lens is top notch. I already knew the f/4 was as good as others have reiterated.

Sometimes just typing it out and hearing (reading) others' input is needed to help reinforce my decisions.

 

[BobbyR]

I don't mind the weight (I regularly hike 4-8 miles with my Mamiya RB67 gear).

Good for you; you have just deflated the horrendously common whine that too many use as a reason not to get or use something.

If one is a five feet tall , one hundred pound woman, they might have a reason to avoid large gear, but it seems most posters here are men....

Bob

 

[walter23]

I like my f4 lens (non-IS). I wouldn't have bought the f/2.8 - just don't need it. I've shot in some pretty dim interiors with bounce flash at f/4 without too much trouble - a few dark reception halls, etc. In those cases it was dark enough that the extra stop wouldn't have helped anyway.

I'm looking to buy a zoom lens for my Canon 35mm. I've been trying to decide whether the 70-200 f/4 L or the f/2.8 L would be the way to go. I'm not interested in the IS versions of either. I've been leaning towards the f/4 because the f2/8 is almost double the price of the f/4.

I've been doing a little research and have come across the older 80-200 f/2.8 but I don't know much about this lens. I can get a used 80-200 f/2.8 for about the same price as a new 70-200 f/4.

A friend of mine has the f/4 and she loves it, although she can't really tell me why she thinks so highly of it. I need someone with experience with one or both to give me a little insight on these two lenses.

 

[walter23]

f/2.8 zooms of this range are huge and heavy. However, they have some inescapable advantages:
- they will let you shoot in light where you can't use an f/4 lens

Yes, but that will only be in a limited number of situations. If it's really dark, you're still going to need bounce flash or other means to deal with it. It's only one stop.

- they will give you greater control over depth of field (particularly at the longer end, where the extra stop lets you blur the background significantly more)

There's not that much difference in DOF between f/2.8 and f/4. Subject distance and focal length have a much greater effect than aperture.

 

[GeoffHill]

I have the 2.8 IS, and did have the 4 non-is, which was stolen

I can't tell any difference in sharpness between the 2. Im sure that you can find a review somewhere that will tell you one is sharper in that the other, but IME, they are both very sharp.

The disadvantages to the f/2,8 are that its big, heavy and expensive. It's very obvious when you are using it. When out and about with it attached to a camera, I always get people commenting. It looks like a big expensive lens.

Its nearly 3lb. thats a lot of lens to carry about. Too much to comfortably hang around your neck, so you have carry it, or put it in a backpack.

Once you get over the disadvantages, it is a fantastic lens. It is sharp at all apertures. I frequently set my camera in AV mode and set the lens to 2.8 and snap away. the extra stop means faster focusing, and a really useful 110-280 f4 attached to a 1.4 extender.

The advantage of 2.8 over 4 is clear. you're going to need 1/250th sec to hold it still, so an extra stop is usefull. It is easy to close a 2.8 lens to 4 if you need to, its a lot less easy to open an f4 lens to f2.8. Combined with the IS, it can be used in really low light. I've frequently used this down to 1/25th sec. The choice between the 4 IS and the 2.8 is a close run thing, IMHO, but if you can live with the disadvantage of size and cost, then the 2.8 is the lens to go for

 

[PhotoJim]

Yes, but that will only be in a limited number of situations. If it's really dark, you're still going to need bounce flash or other means to deal with it. It's only one stop.



There's not that much difference in DOF between f/2.8 and f/4. Subject distance and focal length have a much greater effect than aperture.

To me, the difference in depth of field is markedly noticeable. Depth-of-field preview mode shows it quite nicely.

As to the faster lens permitting shots in lower light, sometimes that stop is the difference between getting a shot or not getting a shot. I got some great shots in Quebec one October day as the sun was setting. I shot at 1/15 at f/2.8 at 20mm. If I had had an f/4 lens, the shots would probably have shown some camera shake because I'd have been shooting at 1/8.

 

[cmo]

About 2 years ago, I asked myself a similar question and, after a lot of thinking, comparing and asking, I bought a Sigma 2.8/70-200, Nice, sharp, but incredibly bad and slow AF focussing.

I sold it and followed the advice of a newspaper photographer: Canon's 2.8 IS. It is one of the three best lenses I own, the other two lenses I would never sell are my two M-Leica Summicrons 35 and 50. Canon's lens is very sharp, contrasty, well built and can stand a little rain.

Even if you wrote that you are not interested in the IS versions, they are absolutely worth the money, for two reasons.

The first reason is obvious, you can shoot at 1/60 with 200mm focal length. Nice, and quite useful for occasional low-light scenes in concerts.

The second reason is that even if you only shoot in California around noon and even if you never shoot at low light, the IS versions allow you to hold the lens stable and frame exactly what you want to show in the image. At 200mm every little shaking means that composition is a little bit like a quiz game.

So, if you can afford it, go for the 2.8 IS... or for the 4.0 IS. Stabilization is really one of the features that helped Canon to become #1 in the 90's.

 

[thebanana]

The solution is quite simple. Buy them both

 

[ben-s]

I have the 2.8IS version. Yes, it's expensive, not to mention heavy, but it's a fantastic lens. The extra stop is a lifesaver for sports and other action, and helps if you want to get shallow focus effects.
I've found it to be sharp, well corrected and extremely resistant to flare.
Like cmo said above, the IS is a really nice feature.

If it's any guide, the 2.8 is consistently Calumet's best selling lens, and there are very few available on the second hand market... it seems that people either hang on to them or lose them

 

[Travis Nunn]

The solution is quite simple. Buy them both

John, that is so nice of you to offer to buy them for me. So when should I expect them to be delivered?

Seriously, the the f/2.8 IS would be awesome, but I simply cannot afford $1699 for a lens. It's just not an option. I ended up choosing the 80-200 f/2.8. I know it's older than the 70-200 series, but I got a good deal on it, around the same price as the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). I do have the ability to return it if I find it's not what I want.

 

[Lee Shively]

It has been mentioned, I think, but I would emphasize the asset of being able to use the Canon extenders with the 70-200/2.8 and still have a lens that is sharp and still has functioning autofocus. Both the 1.4x and 2x Canon extenders do a very fine job on the f/2.8 lens and I have found I use the 1.4x most of the time with my 70-200. I'm not sure the Canon extenders will work on the 80-200/2.8 Canon lens--that would be my only concern.

 

[Travis Nunn]

...I'm not sure the Canon extenders will work on the 80-200/2.8 Canon lens--that would be my only concern.

Hi Lee, I do have a 1.4x extender and it is not compatible with the 80-200 f/2.8. I did check on that before I purchased it. I also have a 400mm lens so that isn't quite as much of a concern for me. I ended up paying a little more than half of what I would have paid for a new 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS). I was going to have to give up something with either one and this seemed like the best way for me to go. If not, I do have two weeks to return it if I decide to do so.

 

[Travis Nunn]

Well, the lens arrived last Thursday and I gave it a good workout over the weekend.

I won't be returning it...