Which Canon Lens? I have been watching the forum for a few weeks now just learning new things. I may have the opportunity to get a new telephoto zoom lens for use on my 60D. Looking...

pbfcpa Loc: Central Maryland, USA

I have been watching the forum for a few weeks now just learning new things. I may have the opportunity to get a new telephoto zoom lens for use on my 60D. Looking for some input between the following (All Canon) EF 70-200 f2.8L USM, EF 70-200 f4L IS USM and EF70-300 F4-5.6L IS USM. The 70-200 f2.8L IS II USM is a bit out of my reach. Any opinions would be appreciated.

birdpix Loc: South East Pennsylvania

All are "L" series lenses and as such are usually very good. Your choice would depend on how much reach you need i.e. what are you going to photograph. The 70-200 is a little higher rated than the 70-300 (some people don't like the location of the focus ring...too close to the body of the camera. Only the 70-200 will work with a telextender and with the 1.4 you will retain autofocus.

olcoach Loc: Oregon

Hi, I had the 70-200 4L and it is a great lens but I take sports pictures and it wasn't fast enough. I have the 70-200 2.8 lens and it is also a great lens and works well for my needs. The 2.8 is heavier than the 4.0 but other than that the picture quality is equal except as I say for the 2.8 being faster. You only need to determine your needs and you can't go wrong. Have fun and keep shootin'. Mike

dasloaf

I have the non IS version of the 70-200mmF2.8 and love it for sports pictures! If I could afford it, I would get the 24-70mmf2.8 for portrait and party pics! These would be two of the three lens in my bag. The other one would be the 50mmF2.8. I would be a happy camper!

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and a 300 2.8 IS.
I shoot wildlife and don't always have the luxury of having my tripod handy as I drag through bushes and heavy wooded areas carrying my 300 on a 50D and my 70-200 on a D60 for backup.
The IS on both makes a big difference for handholding and locking in on moving targets.
I kept shopping around and found my 70-200 used and was a good deal.
So I would say you should see what is around that is used but not abused.

RaydancePhoto

dasloaf wrote:

I have the non IS version of the 70-200mmF2.8 and love it for sports pictures! If I could afford it, I would get the 24-70mmf2.8 for portrait and party pics! These would be two of the three lens in my bag. The other one would be the 50mmF2.8. I would be a happy camper!

I have the Tamron 17-50 SP lens, it is just as sharp as any of my L lenses, quality is supurb. On a crop sensor body, it is aprox the same range as the 24-70.

travlnman46 Loc: Yakima WA

pbfcpa wrote:

I have been watching the forum for a few weeks now just learning new things. I may have the opportunity to get a new telephoto zoom lens for use on my 60D. Looking for some input between the following (All Canon) EF 70-200 f2.8L USM, EF 70-200 f4L IS USM and EF70-300 F4-5.6L IS USM. The 70-200 f2.8L IS II USM is a bit out of my reach. Any opinions would be appreciated.

Hi pbfcpa: Here is a website on Canon lenses, it breaks them down by quality and usage. It's easy to read and follow. All the lenses you selected are "L" series so the quality is there. I purchased my 70-200 2.8L USM used through KEH Camera for $1,120.00 it was rated EX or Excellent love the lens. The only draw back is it doesn't have the reach that a 400mm or 500mm does... and I need to use a tripod because of camera shake. (My hand's actually...lol) Hope this helps.

pbfcpa Loc: Central Maryland, USA

Thanks all for your responses. Do you all think IS is so important in these lenses that I should go for the 4.0 lens with IS instead of the 2.8 without IS? Can't afford the 2.8 with IS.

travinman46 - did you mean to attach a link for a web site. Don't see it. Can you repost?

dasloaf

I have rented both, for me I couldn't tell the difference when taking sports photography. Why not go to lens giant, rent both, see what you think about them. I would go for the 2.8 over the 4.0 any day!

magicunicorn Loc: Melbourne Australia

hi i have the 70-200L and i shoot sports and i love mine also. Here is a photo i have taken last week just to show you what they can do

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

One thing to note is the size/weight difference.

the f/4 is much smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 non-IS or IS version.

It's also much cheaper too.

You have to decide what you are going to do with it:

1.) Carry it around as your all around lens every day or not.

2.) Shoot only in bright sun and not indoors under less than perfect light.

3.) Shoot indoor sports primarily...etc.

Each application and use points to one of the lenses...your useage and pocketbook decide what you will buy.

heyjoe Loc: cincinnati ohio

i would pick the 70-200 /4 with is if in your budget,if not
the 70-200 with out is is good for outdoors,i turn mine off
if shooting in good light,

deanc2006 Loc: lancaster ohio

I needed convincing for the " is " version but finally went for it. Once you see the pics you will say it was money well spent

dasloaf

Non IS, 70-200mmf2.8.

Photog1 Loc: North America

I would say it should depend on your particular shooting habits. If you plan to shoot indoors at all, such as an indoor sporting event at an auditorium or gym, then you need a 2.8 aperture. The 4.0 is just not gonna cut it in low light situations if you want a reasonably fast shutter speed. If most of your shooting is outdoors, in decent light, then you can get by with a 4.0 lens. And then it's down to the 200 or 300, both with IS and USM. The 200 has a fixed 4.0 throughout, and the 300 varies to 5.6 out at the long end, and there's about a $300 price difference.

Do you have anything else out at the long end? Do you NEED 300mm? If it were me I'd probably rent each for a day or so and test them out in my normal shooting manner.