April 17, 2014, 09:30:01 AM

Author Topic: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L  (Read 9395 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12750
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #45 on: September 29, 2013, 09:55:21 AM »
It's a real shame that neither the 70-200 f4 LIS or 70-300 LIS is supplied with a tripod collar.
No, it is absolutely not a shame.  If my 70-300L had come with such a collar it would have cost me 10% for something I would not once have used in the 8 months since I bought it.  I'm very happy that Canon have realised that so many users of this lens would not see the value in having one supplied with it.

It wouldn't have added 10%, any more than the lens hoods that sell separately for $30-40 cost even 10% of those retail prices to produce. 

Personally, I use the tripod ring on the 70-300L frequently, and I agree that it should have been included.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #45 on: September 29, 2013, 09:55:21 AM »

fragilesi

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #46 on: September 29, 2013, 10:23:58 AM »
It's a real shame that neither the 70-200 f4 LIS or 70-300 LIS is supplied with a tripod collar.
No, it is absolutely not a shame.  If my 70-300L had come with such a collar it would have cost me 10% for something I would not once have used in the 8 months since I bought it.  I'm very happy that Canon have realised that so many users of this lens would not see the value in having one supplied with it.

It wouldn't have added 10%, any more than the lens hoods that sell separately for $30-40 cost even 10% of those retail prices to produce. 

Personally, I use the tripod ring on the 70-300L frequently, and I agree that it should have been included.

It retails for about 10% of what the lens retails for.  I don't know how Canon discounts the items it bundles in. 

In any case my guess is that a LOT of people who use this lens especially with its relative portability (as demonstrated by this conversation) won't use it with a tripod.  Simple as.  Why should everyone pay extra, however much it is, just so the rest can get it included?

DominoDude

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #47 on: September 29, 2013, 10:28:58 AM »
The one I bought is the 70-200/4L IS. They way I was reasoning was that it had at least the same resolution as the /2.8L, and with IS I can use almost the same shutter speeds on the /4. I couldn't see enough benefits in shelling out around twice as much for one stop more then. It has served me well both outdoors and indoors.

Side note: For those mentioning the lack of tripod collar on the 70-200/4L IS. I use the tripod collar from my 400/5.6L. It works.

eddiemrg

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #48 on: September 29, 2013, 10:57:20 AM »
Just bought 70-200 L f4 IS and went in a surfcamp: super light for travels!
Canon 7D - 50 f/1.8 - 70-200 L f/4 IS USM - Canon 15-85

GMCPhotographics

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #49 on: September 29, 2013, 01:35:58 PM »
The one I bought is the 70-200/4L IS. They way I was reasoning was that it had at least the same resolution as the /2.8L, and with IS I can use almost the same shutter speeds on the /4. I couldn't see enough benefits in shelling out around twice as much for one stop more then. It has served me well both outdoors and indoors.

Side note: For those mentioning the lack of tripod collar on the 70-200/4L IS. I use the tripod collar from my 400/5.6L. It works.

The IS on the f4 L IS isn't quite as good as the one found on the f2.8 II version, that said, it's still very capable. The f2.8 has twice the brightness and the same level of IS, so you gain a stop in low level shooting. But it's a heavier and harder lens to handle, so I think that the extra stop is lost due to the size and bulk of the f2.8 version. The f2.8 version can melt backgrounds a little easier but focus accuracy becomes more critical as the depth of field diminishes.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 7703
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #50 on: September 29, 2013, 04:51:37 PM »
Everyone I've been talking to in different stores have said IS is the "must-have" on any of the lenses. But they probably have a economic incentive to make me shell out more for an IS lens ;-)


For the longer focal lengths, IS is indeed a big help when using a lens hand held.  To use a non IS lens you need to crank up your shutter speed.  For moving subjects, a high shutter speed is required in any event, but for many of your shots, light may be limited, and if the subject is still or moving slowly, IS is a huge help.
 
Since you have the 24-105mm IS, the 100-400mm IS complements it perfectly.  The three lenses you listed are all excellent, the 70-200mmL's are a little better, but all are excellent.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1671
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #51 on: September 29, 2013, 08:04:14 PM »
The IS on the f4 L IS isn't quite as good as the one found on the f2.8 II version
Says you. Canon says otherwise (that they are equal).
That's the objective part...
that said, it's still very capable. The f2.8 has twice the brightness and the same level of IS, so you gain a stop in low level shooting. But it's a heavier and harder lens to handle, so I think that the extra stop is lost due to the size and bulk of the f2.8 version. The f2.8 version can melt backgrounds a little easier but focus accuracy becomes more critical as the depth of field diminishes.
Now we agree! Since I have both allow me to say regarding the f/4 IS version:  its IS combined with the lower weight - as you also say - makes it a killer combination. That's me. Other members find easy to handhold still a heavy lens. That's the subjective part...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #51 on: September 29, 2013, 08:04:14 PM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #52 on: September 29, 2013, 08:48:55 PM »
The IS on the f4 L IS isn't quite as good as the one found on the f2.8 II version
Says you. Canon says otherwise (that they are equal).

In my experience, they are similar, which means highly effective.

GMCPhotographics

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #53 on: September 30, 2013, 10:40:18 AM »
The IS on the f4 L IS isn't quite as good as the one found on the f2.8 II version
Says you. Canon says otherwise (that they are equal).

In my experience, they are similar, which means highly effective.

The IS on the mk II 70-200 f2.8 L IS is quieter and visibly smoother in the viewfinder. The unit on the f4 LIS is very effective but it's a fair bit older in design than the newer f2.8 version. There's a number of reviewers who have stated that they found the f4 LIS to be slightly less than 4 stops ability and the f2.8 II LIS to be slightly over. Regardless of outcome, both are very capable units and very capable lenses.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1671
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #54 on: September 30, 2013, 03:50:35 PM »
The IS on the f4 L IS isn't quite as good as the one found on the f2.8 II version
Says you. Canon says otherwise (that they are equal).

In my experience, they are similar, which means highly effective.

The IS on the mk II 70-200 f2.8 L IS is quieter and visibly smoother in the viewfinder. The unit on the f4 LIS is very effective but it's a fair bit older in design than the newer f2.8 version. There's a number of reviewers who have stated that they found the f4 LIS to be slightly less than 4 stops ability and the f2.8 II LIS to be slightly over. Regardless of outcome, both are very capable units and very capable lenses.
The IS on the mk II 70-200 f2.8 L IS is indeed much quieter. However, my f/4 L IS seems 4 stops effective while my f/2.8L IS II seems ... 1 stop effective! True this is my subjective view due mainly to lens weight but the end result is the same for me.

ablearcher

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #55 on: September 30, 2013, 04:16:23 PM »
As the OP mentioned events, I'd say 70-200mm f2.8L IS II is the best bet. The lens is heavy but if you can manage it - this will be as good as it gets in this range. I was fine with 70-200 4.0 IS until i got into events (weddings).
Canon 7D; Canon 5D MKIII; Canon EF-S 10-22mm; Canon 50mm 1.8; Canon 28mm 1.8; Canon 85mm 1.8; Canon 24-105mm 4.0 L; Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L II IS; Canon 135mm 2.0 L; Canon 35mm 1.4 L.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1671
    • View Profile
To tell the truth if I had none of the 3 I would be very confused...

GMCPhotographics

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
It's a real shame that neither the 70-200 f4 LIS or 70-300 LIS is supplied with a tripod collar.
No, it is absolutely not a shame.  If my 70-300L had come with such a collar it would have cost me 10% for something I would not once have used in the 8 months since I bought it.  I'm very happy that Canon have realised that so many users of this lens would not see the value in having one supplied with it.

It wouldn't have added 10%, any more than the lens hoods that sell separately for $30-40 cost even 10% of those retail prices to produce. 

Personally, I use the tripod ring on the 70-300L frequently, and I agree that it should have been included.

It retails for about 10% of what the lens retails for.  I don't know how Canon discounts the items it bundles in. 

In any case my guess is that a LOT of people who use this lens especially with its relative portability (as demonstrated by this conversation) won't use it with a tripod.  Simple as.  Why should everyone pay extra, however much it is, just so the rest can get it included?

The irony is that there are more landscape users of the 70-200 f4 LIS and 70-300L than the 70-200 f2.8 II LIS. Many prefer the lighter weight for a lighter bag and rarely need the extra stop of brightness. Most landscapers are keen to shoot in the f8-f11 range for DOF and maximum sharpness. Here's the irony, neither of those lens comes bundled with a tripod collar. Where as the fast f2.8 version comes with one as standard, but rarely gets used by anyone.

canon rumors FORUM


neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12750
    • View Profile
Here's the irony, neither of those lens comes bundled with a tripod collar. Where as the fast f2.8 version comes with one as standard, but rarely gets used by anyone.

I use the tripod collar on my 70-200 II all the time....just not for mounting on a tripod.  ;)  Much better balance when carrying the lens on a Blackrapid strap.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

M.ST

  • Guest
If you only can afford one lens, get the 70-200 f2.8 IS II. With f/2.8 it´s more versatile.

canon rumors FORUM