EF 70-200 F4 L IS or 70-200 F2.8 L

[Haydn1971]

Not considering the 10-22mm EF-S f/3.5-4.5 at half the price of the more expensive 16-35mm L EF f/2.8? Unless you only have a FF, or shoot exclusively wide and low light at the same time of course... I prefer the 10-22 for sharper corners and a decent dof - not as good as I would like, but good enough for the price.

I find it rare to need more than 15mm of my 15-85mm, but much more frequently need low light functionality, wider than 50mm on my crop - the f in this case is more important than the mm - incidentally, I was looking at prices for the 17-55mm last night and numerous places had limited or no availability - is this normal or a sign of replacement ?

[recon photography]

Not considering the 10-22mm EF-S f/3.5-4.5 at half the price of the more expensive 16-35mm L EF f/2.8? Unless you only have a FF, or shoot exclusively wide and low light at the same time of course... I prefer the 10-22 for sharper corners and a decent dof - not as good as I would like, but good enough for the price.

I find it rare to need more than 15mm of my 15-85mm, but much more frequently need low light functionality, wider than 50mm on my crop - the f in this case is more important than the mm - incidentally, I was looking at prices for the 17-55mm last night and numerous places had limited or no availability - is this normal or a sign of replacement ?

possibly, just pick up a non vc tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for 300 odd

it should be

[AECM]

Nice. Although I take a lot of airplane photos, I'm sometimes in them as well. 

Nice! I see you are an Airbus pilot, A320 family?

[wellfedCanuck]

Nice. Although I take a lot of airplane photos, I'm sometimes in them as well. 

Nice! I see you are an Airbus pilot, A320 family?

Yes, captain A319/320/321 for the past 10 years, AC, based CYYZ. The snapshot was takent with a crappy little pocket-camera but that's the Grand Canyon in the background. (That part of the world fascinates me- Shiprock, Monument Valley, et al.)

[AECM]

Yes, captain A319/320/321 for the past 10 years, AC, based CYYZ. The snapshot was takent with a crappy little pocket-camera but that's the Grand Canyon in the background. (That part of the world fascinates me- Shiprock, Monument Valley, et al.)

You sure work in the best office in the world 

[AECM]

but it´s not parfocal (same as the 70-300mm L).
thats not so good for spotting.

What does parfocal means?

thought the 100-400 is not parfocal too.
at least not all copys... i had a few who are parfocal but more are not.

So there are different EF 100-400L? They weren't supposed to be all exactly the same?

[afira]

What does parfocal means?

So there are different EF 100-400L? They weren't supposed to be all exactly the same?

Parfocal - objects in focus at one magnification, aka 100mm, will be in focus or mostly in focus at a  higher magnification, aka 200mm. This is beneficial for people that work with very mobile objects and need to be able to handle zooming in and out and maintaining focus without much shifting between shots. The larger the range of the focal length - typically the harder it is to control focus from one end to the next. This isn't always the case though.

Some lenses have better QC, IQ and generally are just better. It happens as a fault of working with glass and multiple layers of it along with all the imperfections and differences. E.g. the Hubble telescope - a massive piece of glass/mirror that was out by 2.2 microns. Manufacturing for all lens makers is never 100% perfect every time. As far as I am aware, the 100-400mm didn't have multiple releases - but given that the lens was developed in 1998, I sure minor differences would be present between the years.

[neuroanatomist]

The 100-400mm is not a parfocal design, so really none of them should be parfocal.  But, it's a slow lens, and what often happens is that the deep DoF resulting from the narrow aperture masks focus errors, so depending on subject distance you might not notice the change in focal plane as you zoom.

[Edwin Herdman]

We went up to Alex Bay last weekend and I have to say that the 70-300 shots were so grainy even on a 13" notebook that recomposing the shot and using the 24-105L seemed much more professional . . .

"Grainy" shots are generally not the lens' doing, but the camera's when you try to push the ISO past what it should be.

If you mean fuzzy, the cause could be the same.

Higher sensitivity, tripods, IS lenses or - best of all - a faster lens - are all potential solutions.

[RustyTheGeek]

I would like to add that I own the EF 70-300 IS lens you say gives you grainy pictures and I will second Edwin's thoughts.  I have a ton of beautiful pictures from that lens on a 30D and 40D camera, not to mention a 5D.  It's not the fault of the lens unless you have some kind of way off wacky copy.  Far as I am concerned, the EF 70-300 IS lens is a hell of a value for what it can produce.

[AECM]

Hello again! Today i had the opportunity of taking some photos with a EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM and its an excellent lenses i love the image quality, the colors... I also felt on my arms the weight of the lenses, and to balance it was a bit hard because i couldn't stand still, i think that with a bigger body it could had been easier to balance. Know i would like to try the EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, i think that the image quality, sharpness and colors would be similar ore even better than the EF 70 200 f2.8 L USM??

[neuroanatomist]

Hello again! Today i had the opportunity of taking some photos with a EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM and its an excellent lenses i love the image quality, the colors... I also felt on my arms the weight of the lenses, and to balance it was a bit hard because i couldn't stand still, i think that with a bigger body it could had been easier to balance. Know i would like to try the EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, i think that the image quality, sharpness and colors would be similar ore even better than the EF 70 200 f2.8 L USM??

I find that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II balances quite well on my gripped bodies - but the combo is definitely not light.

In terms of IQ, assuming you mean the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS, the 70-200mm f/4L IS has a *very* slight edge, so slight it's unlikely to make any difference in real-world use. So, the trade off is IS and lighter/smaller vs. a stop of light. If you need the extra stop, you need it. If not, the f/4 IS version is great.

[AECM]

Hello again! Today i had the opportunity of taking some photos with a EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM and its an excellent lenses i love the image quality, the colors... I also felt on my arms the weight of the lenses, and to balance it was a bit hard because i couldn't stand still, i think that with a bigger body it could had been easier to balance. Know i would like to try the EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, i think that the image quality, sharpness and colors would be similar ore even better than the EF 70 200 f2.8 L USM??

I find that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II balances quite well on my gripped bodies - but the combo is definitely not light.

In terms of IQ, assuming you mean the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS, the 70-200mm f/4L IS has a *very* slight edge, so slight it's unlikely to make any difference in real-world use. So, the trade off is IS and lighter/smaller vs. a stop of light. If you need the extra stop, you need it. If not, the f/4 IS version is great.

Yes i was referring to the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS. If tomorrow i was buying a Canon 70-200 L series lenses i would buy the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM because at this time i don't really need the f/2.8 and from what i was reading the 70 200 f/4 IS is a very good material.
But now i have other doubts i was reading the review of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM By Craig B / Canon Rumors Guy and he say that in his opinion the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM is as sharp as the 70 200 f/4 L IS USM so my question his can the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be a sort of 70 200 f/4 L IS with an f/4 from 70 to 200 mm and also have an extra 100mm with f/5.6? Can the general image quality of the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be close to that of the 70 200 f/4 L IS?

[neuroanatomist]

i was reading the review of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM By Craig B / Canon Rumors Guy and he say that in his opinion the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM is as sharp as the 70 200 f/4 L IS USM so my question his can the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be a sort of 70 200 f/4 L IS with an f/4 from 70 to 200 mm and also have an extra 100mm with f/5.6? Can the general image quality of the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be close to that of the 70 200 f/4 L IS?

Not quite.  The IQ of the two lenses is essentially equivalent, both excellent and just tiny bit less than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. However, the 70-300 L is only f/4 until just over 100mm. Here's the breakdown:

70-103mm = f/4.0
104-154mm = f/4.5
155-228mm = f/5.0
229-300mm = f/5.6   

So, basically you're trading 100mm for 1/3 - 2/3 stop of light over most of the overlapping focal range. The 70-200 f/4L IS can also take a 1.4x TC (with an IQ hit, or a 2x with a bigger hit and loss of AF on non-1-series bodies).  A variable aperture is a bit of a pain if you shoot in M mode, since you need to adjust exposure as you zoom
(in Av or Tv the camera compensates). The 70-300 L is also a bit more expensive. Having said that, of the two, I'd probably choose the 70-300 L for the extra 100mm.

[scottkinfw]

I have been having that problem with my 50D and a couple of L lenses.  I sent the camera and lenses in to get looked at, so hopefully that may remedy the problem.  If your lens is under warranty, you may want to consider that too.  Of course, I am waiting to see if the problem is resolved.  Just an idea.

sek

Whilst everyone jumps in with the biggest most costly options, a lower cost option is the 70-300mm non L, which although isn't great in low light, works fine for me in terms of getting the occasional long shots - it has IS which helps, but for less than the price of the 70-200mm f4 and half the 70-200mm f4 IS, it's a good bargain and the picture quality is pretty good...   Plus you get the extra reach to 300mm, I've paired mine up with a 15-85mm which is on my camera most of the time.

Wait, are you talking about the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? 

I've been sorely disappointed time after time by this lens; grainy and low-res compared to pretty much every other lens in my collection  

We went up to Alex Bay last weekend and I have to say that the 70-300 shots were so grainy even on a 13" notebook that recomposing the shot and using the 24-105L seemed much more professional . . .

I'm definitely in the market for a higher quality telephoto.