Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 108

Thread: 70-200 F4 Is

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Near St. Louis

    70-200 F4 Is

    So. . . Ya, I'm really leaning towards this lens. I think for me it will be more versatile than the 70-200 2.8 and better financial sense to invest in this baby vs the 70-300 IS. I'm just laying this out here for some comments.

    I've considered the 2.8 + 1.4x tc being a 98-280 F4L but I think the IS of the F4 will be more useful overall than gaining that 1 stop of light.

    I thought I was dead set on the 70-300 IS but then the 70-200 F4L IS came out and despite its $1k price tag I really think this is the one for me. Like I said I'd be interested in hearing opinions about this as long as it doesn't include the words "tamron" or "Sigma" LMAO! J/k.
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004

    I don't agree.

    The 70-200 F4 IS to me seems like a ripoff. The 70-300 has fantastic optical quality and if light isn't an issue is nearly as good as the 70-200 f4L IS.

    the 2.8 will give you shutter speed, the F4 is still an F4.

    F4 is slow on the 24-105, it's REALLY slow on a 70-200 I'd rather have the 2.8 for the shutter speed/f stop then the IS.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Chico, California most of the time
    Well, I'll see. I ordered the 70-200 4L IS today. I already have the 70-300 IS and love it. It is sharp and great for travel. But, it tends to hunt some, although I have not lost many shots because of this. I'm looking forward to comparing the optical quality of the two lenses.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    i dunno about this one. seems you could pull off a lot of shots at f2.8 + IS where f4 might be too slow. personally i do make use of that f2.8 aperture quite often. i carry my tripod around most of the time, which mostly takes care of camera shake, but i still often need the SS to deal with motion blur. I also don't think you'll be too thrilled with the f4 if you plan on using a 1.4x TC (ain't no better than the 70-300 IS in this case, at more $$$ too). YMMV. i'd spend the extra for the f2.8 IS and not have thoughts about upgrading again (unless they replace it). of course, if you're short on cash and have more important things to take care of...

    BTW that 17-55 IS seems real sweet. just got back from new years at vegas and there were plenty of times i wished i had that lens for people shots
    Last edited by ReF; 01-03-2007 at 06:18 PM.
    canon 17-40 L, 70-200 f2.8 L, 400 f5.6 L, 50 f1.4 & f1.8, 1.4x TC, sigma 15 f2.8 fisheye, flash 500 DG Super, kenko extension tubes

    note to self: don't participate in sad, silly threads unless you're looking for sad, silly responses.

    "anti-BS filter" (from andy): http://dcresource.com/forums/showpos...94&postcount=4

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    The mitten state
    f/4 IS = $999
    f/2.8 IS = $1599 (B&H psnov)

    C'mon brotha...little more OT, some more milage reimbursements, keep all the lights off, share Coops canned gourmet delights...you'll have it in no time.

    With how you like to work in available/low light, I really don't think you'll be happy with the 4.0. After all, with the exception of your nifty, your dumping everything above 2.8.

    (would she notice if you dropped on a cubic zerconia instead of the real thing??? That could be your answer right there buddy)
    UPS drivers should wear red and white like Santa!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Los Angeles, CA
    The solution: try both be4 you buy either. You might like the 70-300 IS more than you think. Or you might not.
    Canon A720 IS, 40D w/ BG-E2N, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 70 2.8 macro, 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-200 F4 L IS, 430 EX, Kenko 2X TC & Ext Tubes, AB strobes and more...
    View my photo galleries here: imageevent.com/24peter

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    I saw a 70-200 f2.8 IS go for $1450 on FM last week. Drool!

    I only rented the 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) once - oh, and used Ref's. He swears by it, and I really got a kick out of the f2.8 at that FL. It's like a macro shot at 20 feet off from all the blur. Eye clear, eyelash fading. Knowing your style, f2.8 would just seem a natural.

    You're just on a high using that IS and wanna keep the ride going!

    I was wishing last weekend I had a 70-300 rather than the 70-200 - the IQ is different, but can't be that different.

    So, did that throw mud as an answer?
    Last edited by Vich; 01-03-2007 at 10:13 PM.
    Gear List:
    Some links I like: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Murrays Beach, NSW
    I'm not quite up to the photography standards of some of you folks but have the 70-200 f4 IS and am very pleased with it. I have never used the f2.8 so can't compare but so far the image quality of the f4 is fantastic and the IS is noticeable. I don't plan on needing a tele-zoom in low light conditions so was happy to take the lighter lens in place of the f-stop. As I consider the weight to counter the speed I see the IS as a nice bonus. I've not yet shot any moving targets but it makes hand-holding (albeit in good daylight) easy.
    I've posted examples before (I can't remember the name of the thread). Here is another shot, excuse the composition:
    70-200mm f4L IS USM at 200mm f4 1/800 ISO800 (IS on and handheld):

    and a 100% crop of the original picture:

    I'm sure all of the lenses mentioned are good so it will come down to what you want to do with it. (And I managed to avoid mentioning Tamron!)
    Canon EOS 5D III
    Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS, 70-200mm f4L IS
    Canon GP-E2, Eye-Fi Card

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Lancashire, UK
    I have the 70-300mm IS and love it. Its a nice size and weight and BLACK! (maybe you prefer white tho).

    However, i too questioned the place of the 70-200mm f/4 IS thinking it was kind of a nothing lens, but looking at the iso 12233 results here, the 70-200 seems to have the 70-300 beat hands down on sharpness, even with a 1.x tc on Thats only one test though, and it was on a 1D so maybe that made a difference.

    In the end it came down to price and FL for me and the cheaper 70-300 won the day
    philshoebottom.co.uk | flickr | Vimeo | Twitter

    Canon 7D + 20D | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L | Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (for sale)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Grafton, MA
    I'm with everyone else that would have a hard time shelling out $1000 clams for an f4 lens. I think if faced with the choice, I'd go with the 70-300 route and use the cash I saved to go to Disney World...

    Honestly, they both have 2nd gen IS, they both start at f4, both have USM, but the 70-300 gives you 100mm more native reach built in. Not sure what fstop goes with 200mm on the 70-300, but you may not even be losing a full stop. And as Ref pointed out, once you mount the TC, that $1000 L is a 98-300 f5.6 anyway.

    I think at $800 I might be swayed by the f4 in your shoes, but at $1000...

    On the other hand, the f2.8 IS is one hell of a lens. Magic in a long white package (that's what she said...)

    Canon 5dII|Canon 5D|Canon 40D|Sigma 15 f2.8|Canon 35 f1.4|Canon 50 f2.5|Canon 50 f1.8|Canon 85 f1.2|Canon 17-40 f4|Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS|Canon 24-105 f4 IS|Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5|Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS|Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS|Kenko 1.4x TC|Canon 580ex X3|Canon 380exII |Canon 420ex|Sunpak 383 x4|Sunpak 120j x2|Sunpak 622|Elinchrom Skyports

    Past Gear

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts