Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 70-200mm  
User currently offlineCalfo From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 166 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 11 months 4 days ago) and read 4316 times:

So. I'm looking at the Canon 70-200mm lens.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM - $1849
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM - $1319
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM - $1199

Which one is the best for the money?

Thanks

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4698 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 4 days ago) and read 4308 times:

Depends, what do you want to shoot with it?

Besides, don't forget the f/4 non IS



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineCalfo From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4302 times:



Quoting JRadier (Reply 1):
Besides, don't forget the f/4 non IS

http://www.vistek.ca/store/CameraLen...m-f4l-usm-telephoto-zoom-lens.aspx

Quoting JRadier (Reply 1):
Depends, what do you want to shoot with it?

Does that really matter?


User currently onlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3307 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4298 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Calfo (Reply 2):
Does that really matter?

Yes it really does.

If you're going to be shooting aviation on bright sunny days with short shutter speeds, then all you need is the F4 USM.

If you're going to do panning shots on bright sunny days, you only need the F4 IS USM.

And, lastly, if you want to shoot in darker conditions or rainy weather, than the F2.8 IS USM will be the one to buy for the larger aperture in lower light.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineCalfo From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4294 times:

Well, it would be to shoot everything basically. Bright sunny weather, rainy, dark, night, and everything else you can think of.

I currently have the 70-300mm F4-5.6 USM. I'm looking for something high quality.


User currently onlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4698 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4291 times:



Quoting Calfo (Reply 2):
http://www.vistek.ca/store/CameraLen...m-f4l-usm-telephoto-zoom-lens.aspx

That's the IS lens, I'm talking about this one

http://www.vistek.ca/store/CameraLen...-f40l-usm-telephoto-zoom-lens.aspx

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 3):

And, lastly, if you want to shoot in darker conditions or rainy weather, than the F2.8 IS USM will be the one to buy for the larger aperture in lower light.

Or if you use it for other things where you would like a small DOF.....



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineCalfo From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4286 times:

Another question.

The difference between IS and non IS?
Shooting at
1/1000
1/500
1/20


User currently offlineJetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2799 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4282 times:



Quoting Calfo (Reply 6):
The difference between IS and non IS?
Shooting at
1/1000
1/500
1/20

Depends on a TON of factors, including hand steadyness.

For some people 1/20 shots panning can be done hand-held, but that number is very few.

1/1000, bright enough obviously to not need IS
1/500 bright enough to not even need IS

For 1/200ish and below there are WAAAY to many factors to determine how IS would help.



No info
User currently onlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4698 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4278 times:

Calfo,

I do not want to sound condescending, but perhaps you should investigate more before you do such a purchase. Read about what IS does and when it is helpful, and when it isn't. Read about aperture, the differences between a f/4 and f/2.8 lens and most important of all, think what you really want and see how the choices above fit that. If you have us pick a lens for the 'best value' you are bound to be disappointed, and that with a very expensive piece of glass.

just my 2 cents



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4244 times:

I have the 2.8 IS and its amazing, works great on the 5D. I can shoot in any light at ISO 400 with no grain.... I have done a few weddings and about 95+ pics are amazing. If you have the cash, get the best... you will not regret.... I use my camera about 25% aviation and 75% other... so go with what you do best...

Might I add, the 100-400 is the best aviation lens.... so choose the L glass for your needs not your wants,

Grant



Drive it like you stole it!
User currently offlineDaleaholic From UK - England, joined Oct 2005, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4104 times:

Today I ordered a 70-200 F4 L and can't wait for it to arrive Big grin Will report back once I've tried it out! Big grin


Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
User currently offlineCalfo From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4104 times:



Quoting Daleaholic (Reply 10):
Today I ordered a 70-200 F4 L

Well, I just ordered my 70-200mm F4L IS yesterday!!


User currently offlineDaleaholic From UK - England, joined Oct 2005, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day ago) and read 4080 times:



Quoting Calfo (Reply 11):
Well, I just ordered my 70-200mm F4L IS yesterday!!

Brilliant, you'll have to let us know how you get on with yours  Smile



Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
User currently offlineCalfo From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 4053 times:



Quoting Daleaholic (Reply 12):
Brilliant, you'll have to let us know how you get on with yours Smile

I sure will!


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 4052 times:

I'd say the Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

User currently offlineTRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 4034 times:

I never understood how anetters used F2.8 and to take a/c pics and get the whole a/c in focus.

User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 16 hours ago) and read 4023 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT



Quoting JeffM (Reply 14):

I was going to buy that for my Minolta, but changed my mind after reading several reviews, particularly dpreviews that said this about the Canon one "We can't recommend this lens to anyone".
So I was going to buy a Sony SAL70200G, and that lens was $400 more expensive than the Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS, so I decided to change system and got a 50D as well.

Quoting TRVYYZ (Reply 15):

It's not so hard as the blurring is not that apparent on a longer distance. I have shot aircraft with my 50mm 1.4 that have the entire aircraft in focus.



5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 9 hours ago) and read 3996 times:



Quoting TRVYYZ (Reply 15):
I never understood how anetters used F2.8 and to take a/c pics and get the whole a/c in focus.

You need to learn about depth of field and the things that effect it.

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 16):
I was going to buy that for my Minolta, but changed my mind after reading several reviews, particularly dpreviews that said this about the Canon one "We can't recommend this lens to anyone".

Too bad, I've owned one for Nikon and one for Canon and both have been absolutely fantastic lenses. Guess that goes to show you dprieview isn't always right or accurate.


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 3989 times:



Quoting JeffM (Reply 17):
Guess that goes to show you dprieview isn't always right or accurate.

Or maybe Sigma's infamous quality assurance (i.e. lack of) hit again and the dpreview guys got a really bad copy...

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineEMA747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 1171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 3980 times:



Quoting TRVYYZ (Reply 15):

Good point. I remember shooting f4.5 at CDG one time and the pics all came out a bit out of focus in one part or another. Does it depend what angel you are shooting the plane at? If it's a 90 degrees to the plane
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Derden - Spot This!

shot I guess it's a lot easier to get it all in focus at f2.8. For a shot like this
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Zaninger Jonathan

where there is a bigger depth of field I guess it's much harder (maybe impossible?) to get it all in focus at f2.8.

Anyone have any examples shot at f2.8 on here?

Andy S



Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
User currently offlineTRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 3959 times:



Quoting JeffM (Reply 17):
You need to learn about depth of field and the things that effect it.

Well, I was precisely talking about it. Have you taken any full shots of a/c's at F2.8 and if so can you post an example of it?


User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 3936 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

I have a couple I have shot at 1.4 "on the other side", early morning at MMX

One example: photo ID 5971697 at "dark side"

[Edited 2008-10-28 12:42:48]


5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3920 times:



Quoting TRVYYZ (Reply 20):
Well, I was precisely talking about it. Have you taken any full shots of a/c's at F2.8 and if so can you post an example of it?

Hundreds....but I'm not about to dig through them all for this....

Try punching in some info here on your camera/lens/distance...you'll be surprised.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

a 200mm lens at f2.8 at even 500 feet will produce a zone of focus of 213.4 feet. 84.9 infront of the plane of focus and 128.5 behind. Plenty of room, and it increases with distance. A 50mm at 1.8 at 100 feet produces almost that.....99.3 feet.


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3906 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 22):
a 200mm lens at f2.8 at even 500 feet will produce a zone of focus of 213.4 feet. 84.9 infront of the plane of focus and 128.5 behind. Plenty of room, and it increases with distance. A 50mm at 1.8 at 100 feet produces almost that.....99.3 feet.
Haven't you still given up hope they will ever understand Jeff ?  
I did, long time ago...........

BTW there is a DOF indicator on top of your lens which will pretty much match the calculations, if you know how to use it that is.

Sigma 70-200 with 2x TC at max focal distance, max zoom and max aperture.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders


I know the pixel peepers will tell it's soft wide open, soft at the long end and unworkable soft with TC........ I've heard it all for years, well if my Canon 24-105/4L had half the optical qualities of the Sigma it would be somewhat worth it's price tag.
Although I have to admit that the latest version with macro added is one step to far.

[Edited 2008-10-28 15:23:11]


The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineTRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3888 times:

Quote: JeffM

That's a cool link. Thanks. We all know we could always learn something from you   Wink

[Edited 2008-10-28 18:04:42]

25 Allpress : 70-200 2.8 IS... you wont need to upgrade =]
26 BuyantUkhaa : " target=_blank>http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html Interesting site, thanks for sharing!
27 Rovingbroker : Calfo: I suggest you spend some time with your 70-300 set at 200mm shooting with the IS on and off. Look at the results and decide if for your shootin
28 Michlis : All this talk about the 70-200 f/2.8 inspired me to rent a copy. Looking forward to giving it a workout this weekend.
29 Fergulmcc : You won't look back, attached to my 1Dn all the time, one of the best lenses I've ever bought, enjoy, you won't want to hand it back! Have fun Fergul
30 Michlis : I know what I want Santa to put in my Christmas stocking this year...actually it would probably be safer under the tree. Awesome lense.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 70-200mm F/4.0L From B&H posted Thu Aug 12 2004 03:53:48 by QantasA332
The Canon EF 70-200mm F/4L USM posted Mon Jul 3 2006 03:35:04 by Aero145
The Canon EF 70-200mm 1:4L USM posted Mon Apr 17 2006 00:57:27 by Flyingzacko
70-200mm: Canon Or Sigma? posted Thu Mar 4 2004 05:48:31 by Airbus Lover
Canon EF 70-200mm L posted Thu Nov 14 2002 20:41:02 by Aer Lingus
Canon 70-200 F/4 Is Or Non? posted Mon Oct 20 2008 00:28:07 by Nikog
Canon 70-300 Is Lens, Is It Worth The Price? posted Fri Dec 28 2007 20:46:27 by MIAMIx707
Need Help On Canon 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM! posted Wed Dec 19 2007 03:42:04 by Mnazarinia
Canon 70-200 L F4 posted Sat Sep 1 2007 00:11:53 by PictureThis
Canon 70-200 F/2.8L Is Quality posted Thu Jun 21 2007 17:00:34 by GuamVICE