Sheila B

Morning!
I have been thinking about getting the Canon 70-200 F2.8 lens but not sure which one to get!
I'm into bird photography and I already own the Sigma 150-500.
I use a tripod as I can not hold the heavy lens for too long.
So my question is, if you bought the Canon 70-200 F2.8 which one would you buy? The higher end? Or lesser?

dvan7117 Loc: Colorado

The major differences between the two lenses are weight and price. One has image stabilization and one doesn't. The image quality should be similar. The IS version is not that light at about 3.25 lbs. The non IS version is about 2.9 lbs. There is about $850 difference between the two. After knowing all of this the decision is still yours to make. Good luck.

RegisG Loc: Mid-Tennessee

One thought is that you would have IS turned off on tripod.

I have the f4.0L and like it a lot. But, will upgrade to 2.8 when my budget allows.

RegisG

daddybear Loc: Brunswick, NY

Because of age and tremors I use a tripod 90% of the time, I chose the non-IS model. When shooting handheld I raise my shutter speed and adjust accordingly.

Daddybear

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Sheila, based upon what you wrote, I would forget about the 70-200. Your Sigma covers the range you probably use a lot. The only reason I see for buying it is to get one or two more stops of lens speed but that is at the price of having only 200 mm. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, you have two options. First, buy the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I have it and love the sharpness. Second, put the money in my pocket. I will take good care of it for you.

But seriously, let me know if I am missing something.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I bought a used early model of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and saved a lot of money and it has great reviews. I can't see paying twice as much for an IQ that takes a magnifying glass to see.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

There is a significant difference in IQ with the 2.8 II version. With the II version, you can use a 2X TC and get to 400mm - which you already cover with the Sigma. If I were you, I would get the 70-200 f4 version and put a 1.4X behind it - when you want to travel light and/or augment the Sigma. The 2.8 versions are almost as big and heavy as the Sigma !

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

Sheila, Good morning. I had the 2.8 IS and found it too heavy for what I wanted it for ... so I bought the f/4 IS and love it. I photograph wildlife (primarily birds) and find that lens especially great with birds in flight. I do not use that lens on a tripod. The quality is fantastic, the AF is extremely fast and the IS is well worth the price. Photo attached. Best, J. Goffe

70-200mm f/4


70-200mm f/4


70-200mm f/4

Sheila B

Thank you all for your responses!
I love your bird pics, F Stops Here!
I will let you know what I decide to do!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Sheila, I own a 70-200 f4 non-IS. I've had it for maybe 5 years now. I own a 24-105 as well as the 100-400.
Personally, I very rarely use the 70-200. If I was doing it right now, I would NOT get a 2.8, but go with the same little light and small f4! Maybe if I did a lot of night sports or something. I do shoot a lot of sports, but they are mostly daytime.
For nature, the 70-200 is just too short for me to be of much value.
How often do you wish you 150-500 was shorter? If a lot, maybe you need it. Maybe you need a 100-400 if the 150-500 is too big and long. Maybe there's a reason why there are probably 10 million 100-400's out there in the field right now.
It's a tough decision, unless you just want one, then it's a no brainer, just get it.
I'm sure you'll hear from those that think it's the best walk-around on the planet! I also shoot FF. good luck. ;-)
SS

twowindsbear

Why not get a 'something'-150 so your're not overlapping so much?

keithet58 Loc: Western Colorado

great photos how do you get those birds to pose. the birds in flight are sharp.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Hi Sheila. I use both the f/2.8 and the f/4.0 (both are non-IS). The f/4.0 is not going to pressure you at all, the 2,8 most definitely will. There are times I use the f/4.0 as a "walk around" lens, it is that easy to carry. There are pros and cons of IS, weight and cost are two I judged important. The differences were enough to sway me. Both are great tools to help in the pursuit of the perfect image. They take nice pictures also. GL.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

[quote=keithet58]
great photos, how do you get those birds to pose. quote]

58, I get good POSED bird shots all the time.
I borrow my birds from a taxidermist!! :lol: :lol:
SS

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

No, with the 70-200s you don't have to turn off IS manually, unless you want to save a miniscule amount of battery charge it might use.

The Canon 70-200s with IS and a number of other Canon lenses "self-detect" when locked down on a tripod and turn IS off automatically. I have the 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I" that I've used for 12 or 13 years, and the 70-200/4 IS that I've used for a couple years, and cannot recall every turning off IS on either of them. (Granted, I mostly use them handheld.)

In fact, if using on a tripod with a "loose" axis, such as a gimbal head or just set up for panning, or on a monopod, you definitely should leave IS on. IS can be effective against even very fine vibrations, such as mirror slap within the camera at slower shutter speeds. I recommend leaving it on and really love it.

Canon lenses that don't self-detect and IS should be manually turned off, when locked down on a tripod, are: 24-105L, 28-135, 300/4L, 100-400L.

Canon lenses that do self-detect and don't need to be turned off are all versions of: the 70-200s with IS, 200/2L, 300/2.8L, 400/4 DO, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6.

The above list is a few years old now and there are a number of other lenses now with IS, that I just don't know. But it's easy to test. Lock the camera and lens down on a tripod and see if the IS causes movement. It's sort of like a feedback loop, where the less sophisticated type of IS creates movement when there is none for it to correct. If this occurs, simply turn IS off manually. No harm will be done to camera or lens.

The 70-200/4s are about 2/3 the size and weight of the 70-200/2.8s. The f4 versions also don't come with a tripod mounting ring... it's sold separately (about $160 for the Canon OEM ring... there are third party clones for as low as $50 that seem okay). The f2.8 lenses include a tripod ring, part of the reason they are higher priced.

The 70-200/2.8 non-IS is the oldest of the line-up (1995) and some feel has the weakest image quality. Though really all five Canon 70-200s have quite good IQ, the difference isn't all that great.

The 70-200/4 non-IS is the second oldest design (1999), and the 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I" came soon after (2001).

The 70-200/4 IS was introduced in 2006 and the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II replaced the original version in 2010. All five lenses use UD elements, but only these two latest models also use fluorite, which might be why and most users consider them the sharpest of the bunch, especially wide open.

The IS on these two latest lenses is rated for four stops assistance. The earlier 70-200/2.8 "Mark I's" IS is rated for about 3 stops assistance. It also was subject of a "silent upgrade" a couple years after the lens was introduced (around 2003?), mostly for serviceability according to Canon... They made no claim of any added durability or better performance with the IS revision, so I never bothered having it done to my early version of the lens (That "upgrade" cost $600 US, last time I heard anything about it... I'd only bother to do it if the IS in my lens ever failed.)

I think all five lenses use 8-bladed apertures. The three latest models (i.e., the f2.8 IS from 2001, f4 IS from 2006 and f2.8 IS Mark II from 2010) also use curved aperture blades to render slightly nicer background blur.

All five are internal focusing and zooming, meaning they don't increase in length when focused closer or the focal length is changed. It also means their front barrel doesn't rotate (which can be a pain if using filters).

All five lenses have fast, accurate and quiet USM auto focus. The f2.8 lenses are a wee bit faster and will be less inclined to hunt in challenging, lower light conditions. Most Canon cameras have at least one AF point (at the center) that's higher performance when matched up with an f2.8 or faster lens. I think all five lenses also have focus limiters, to help them focus even faster in certain situations.

All five also are parfocal zooms, meaning they maintain focus when focal length is adjusted to a different setting. This type of design is not used in many modern auto focus zooms, they instead are varifocal to save on complexity and cost to produce. With varifocal lenses it's important to remember to re-focus after changing the focal length setting (not a problem if using AI Servo, but something to keep in mind if using One Shot AF).

Like most L-series, all five of the 70-200s come with matching lens hoods. The f2.8 lenses use "tulip" style, bayonet mount hoods, while the f4 lenses use straight sided, bayonet mount hoods. The f2.8 lenses use 77mm filters and the f4 lenses use 67mm.

If the price of the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II is too steep, but you really want IS and f2.8, you might look for a good, used "Mark I". It's still a great lens (I haven't bothered to upgrade mine, and it might be my most used lens over the past 12 or 13 years.) If you do shop used, be a little careful and watch for signs of heavy use... these lenses are in a lot of pros' bags and are real workhorses. Usually it's pretty obvious if they've been used hard.

If using one of the smaller Canon camera bodies, you might feel the f2.8 lens is a bit nose-heavy and unbalanced on it. If you don't already have one, adding a battery/vertical grip to the camera might help. But more than a few people who have taken my 70-200/2.8 IS for a test drive have decided to get the smaller and lighter f4 version instead.