70-200mm lens advice please?

[MarkE70]

Hi, I can't decide whether to get the Canon 70-200LIS f4 or the faster f2.8 version. Does anybody use either of these lens? and do you think its worth splashing out the extra £500 on the 2.8? or would you recommend alternatives.

Any advice would be appreciated,
Cheers, Mark.

P.S. I'm going to be using it alongside my 500mm lens for wildlife photography.

[GerryNick2]

I have been having the same deliberations. Pre-digital I had a Canon FD 70-210mm which was my most used lense. Looking to fill a gap in my current range of lenses the 70-200mm best meets my needs. Given there is a choice of 4 Canon lenses in the 70-200mm range if you include Non-IS models it is tricky in coming to a decision.

You have to ask yourself whether you really need a f2.8 aperture, do you need IS, is weight an issue and am I prepared to pay the extra for one stop.

I want a light-weight walkabout lens and IS so that rules out the f2.8 for me at 1.5kg. I will be going for the F4 IS version at .75kg, half the weight and nearly half the price..

Gerry

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by MarkE70

....... I'm going to be using it..... for wildlife photography.

Mark,

I guess the question is what kind of wildlife photography?

I've just bought the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS but with very specific uses in mind - ie. close-range high-speed Kingfisher shots and close to mid-range low-light Barn Owl shots.

For these purposes I considered the f/2.8 model to be the best option, particularly as I already have the 100-400 'pump'.

Having read many reviews of the Canon 70-200 range of lenses I also decided to go the whole hog and spend the extra on the IS version, on the basis (as several reviewers commented) that if you're going to spend £900 or so on one of the f/2.8 versions you may as well spend another £250 - £300 for the IS (or forever regret not doing so!). The f/2.8 IS version is also used (and highly praised) by several Wildlife Pros.

Although I've had only limited opportunities to exploit its speed during the two weeks or so that I've had it, I've no doubt that it's a fine lens with excellent sharpness and autofocus speed. But in my view it's a matter of 'horses for courses' and, as Gerry says, I wouldn't consider it an ideal walk-about lens.

Hope that helps

Jeff

[DaiTheDragon]

If you can afford it get the 2.8 IS. I have one and think it is an fantastic lens, although I don't use it much. I use it for getting Dragonflies in flight, shooting garden birds from my shed (hide). If you put a 1.4 converter on you can get great shots of Butterflies, Dragonflies and Damselflies without getting too close. I bought it mainly for motor sports and football where you quite often have to shoot in low light.
Try and think of situations that you would need this lens and decide if it is worth it. Good luck on your choice.

Dai

[beckiscott]

I've got the 70-200 f4, and its a great option alongside my 100-400. It's so light you can handhold with great results. ok, it doesnt come with a tripod collar; but its good shorted walkround-wildlife lens.
The 2.8 (non is) compared with the f4 (non is) doesnt get as good a image quality reviews on several of the sites i looked at when purchasing.
i love f2.8 lenses but if you really dont need the shallow depth of field or the fast speed (or dont hav the budget!) then f4 is still good.

[JeffH]

By the way Mark, I forgot to mention this in my earlier post but, in case you haven't noticed, there's a couple of brief reviews of the f/2.8 IS version in the Reviews section

Jeff

[Geoff F]

If you need a fast lens get the 2.8 version; otherwise I would suggest the 70-300 IS. That extra 100 makes all the difference for wildlife photography and would better complement your 500.

If size and money aren't a constraint, think about the 70-300 2.8.

[Geoff F]

ps. I meant the 28-300 IS (only £1600). One other option if you do go for one of the 70-200 lenses is a converter. I think they both accept the Canon 1.4x which would give you a better range for a little extra cost.