Medium Range, High Quality Zoom.

NickCantle · #1 (**permalink**) 20-01-2009, 06:54 PM

Hello!

I'm looking for a little advice on a medium range zoom lens. I've been looking and drooling at Canon's L series 70-200mm zooms and pondering "Is it worth it?" I am looking to be using it for general use. Portraiture on occasion and a general use, medium range zoom, but preferably with excellent quality and I'm sure one of these lenses will provide the quality I am after.

Firstly, should I feel guilty about wanting these lenses? They show an absolutely immaculate level of quality and build? I can afford one if I want one, and I do really think that I would love to own one, but it's the justification that I am after. I know it is only me that can justify owning a lens.

The two contenders are;

Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM - Price wise, surely I can't go wrong here. Ok, it's not as fast as its more expensive brother (f/2.8) but will the extra stop make a drastic difference? I can pick one of these up for about £379 if I want one.

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM - Much more expensive but a fast and more heavy built piece of kit. I like heavier lenses as they seem to assist my ability to handhold.

I know this sounds very silly, and don't fret, I shalln't jump into buying anything without some advice, but what other subjects are suitable for capturing with this lens? I'm aware that it's good for portraiture and the like, but does anyone use one for Wildlife here on WAB?

I look forward to your advice,

Thanks!

Nick

NJP87 · #2 (**permalink**) 20-01-2009, 07:38 PM

I'm a nikon user so i can't comment of the lenses themselves but don't feel guilty about buying one, if you can afford it and want one, then get one

They should be fine for wildlife, and if you want a bit of extra reach you could get a extender.

Nick

GerryNick2 · #3 (**permalink**) 20-01-2009, 07:47 PM

Hi Nick

As you know from my post on this subject I have the f4 non IS version which I am extremely pleased with and picked up last year for £300. I bought it for a lightweight general purpose lens at a sensible price. To be quite honest it has not seen a lot of use, the 24-70mm f2.8L covers me for fungi and flowers etc as well as portraits and the 100mm-400mm for wildlife.

The 70-200mm range is very popular as a general walkabout lens ideal for shots of friends and family, weddings, stagework, pets and some portrait work. If you do a lot in these areas and in poor light conditions then it may be worthwhile splashing out on the f2.8 version. Given the weight (1310g) and a desire to handhold I would go for the 3 stop IS version which weighs in at 1470g has a MFD of 1.3m and maximum magnification at 200mm of 0.17x (the f4 version is 0.21x). Stick a 1.4tc on it and it will have some limited use for wildlife and make a nice zoo lens.

Gerry

NickCantle · #4 (**permalink**) 20-01-2009, 08:33 PM

Thank you Nick and Gerry for your replies.

I think the problem is having four to choose from. The problem is now reduced a little because I have discounted IS. I simply cannot justify spending over £1,000 on this piece of kit; not saying it's not worth it, but personally, I cannot justify it. The price of an IS f/4 would match a non IS f/2.8 so now comes the tough part.

Which is more useful, IS on an F/4 or a non IS f/2.8? I did wonder about the how the latter is a larger and heavier lens ,but I am indifferent to that aspect if it will pay off in image quality.

Price wise, as I said I can get;

A second hand f/4 for £379

OR

A second hand f/2.8 for £660

What do I do?

NJP87 · #5 (**permalink**) 20-01-2009, 08:43 PM

for me it would be the f2.8, having the extra stop of light would be useful, also a plus for the 2.8, if you add a 1.4 extender you would have 320mm f4

NickCantle · #6 (**permalink**) 20-01-2009, 09:50 PM

Is the extra stop worth £280?

Geoff F · #7 (**permalink**) 20-01-2009, 10:02 PM

Yet another alternative. I use the 70-300 IS as my general purpose lens. Just about big enough for average wildlife work and with a 25mm tube it becomes an acceptable macro lens.

From my experience I would say unless you are going to always use a tripod get IS for these longer lenses. It really does make all the difference when handholding; even at shutter speeds upto 1/500.

NJP87 · #8 (**permalink**) 20-01-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Is the extra stop worth £280?

If it means you get the shot

DaiTheDragon · #9 (**permalink**) 20-01-2009, 10:22 PM

If you get the f2.8 and add a 1.4 TC you will still be able to use autofocus. I have the f2.8 IS and you can use it to photograph large insect, butterflies, dragonflies, portrait and birds at close range. I have started using mine with a TC on a 50D to photograph birds in the garden. The extra megapixels on the 50D allow me to crop quite heavy as well.

Dai

NickCantle · #10 (**permalink**) 20-01-2009, 10:25 PM

Thanks Geoff and Dai, though I think I may have given the wrong impression that I need a long lens. I have the Sigma 50-500 which does me fine for the long end of things and I have a Sigma 105mm for macro. So the lens I'm looking to buy here is to essentially cover 105-200mm (I think the Sigma is effective at 300mm). I can't foresee myself getting tangled up in extension tubes and/or converters, just the lens on its own.

I've found somewhere where I can get a f/4 with IS for little over £760. Is the F/4 with IS going to be much different to a f/2.8 without?

Why is it so hard to make decisions