70-200 Choices

[slogical]

I am looking to make a much needed upgraded to the 70mm+ range of my lenses. I know this is a topic that crops up quite frequently and the answer is always, quite rightly, buy the 2.8L IS II. Unfortunately my budget cannot stretch that far and is capped at £1000 which puts the Canon f4 L, Canon f4 L IS, Canon f2.8 L USM non-IS and Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM in the frame.

My work is split 50/50 between studio portraiture and concert photography. Really it has to be one of the f2.8 lenses. The concert photography is a mix of relatively stationary singers and more active bands or cabaret performers where IS wouldn't really help. The studio work is often tripod mounted but I like the freedom to hand-hold where possible.

As I might benefit from IS I am tempted by the Sigma but most reviews raise concerns about corner softness, particularly with the lens wide open. Equally as the Canon f2.8 USM is an old lens there aren't many current reviews that go into the same detail so I'm unsure whether it fares any better.

Any advice from those with more experience with either lens would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[tron]

If it had to be 2.8 I would get the Canon. I used to have that lens since 1996 (or 1997 it has been a long time...)

I remember it as the first zoom lens that provided fixed lens image quality (judging from B&W enlargements).

I did not enjoy it much with my 1st digital SLR (40D) though as it was in a bag that was stolen

 

[J.R.]

Get the Canon 2.8 (non IS). Or, for what you do, try out the 135L f/2.

 

[Loswr]

Get the Canon 2.8 (non IS). Or, for what you do, try out the 135L f/2.

+1

 

[Zv]

If you earn money from these jobs you should really be investing in the 2.8 II, why spend £1000 for such an old lens? Might seem like a lot of money but the lens will eventually pay for itself when your clients see stunning images.

If budget is tight I would recommend a second hand 135L. Second hand will get you at least £100 off that lens. I got mines second hand, and it looked barely used, for a bargain. It will mean less flexibility and no IS but you can get the job done by bumping up ISO or adding flash. Then when you've saved up the rest of the money sell it and buy the 2.8 II.

Crop body plus the cheap 100 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 can do the trick too if you're really strapped for cash.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I have the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS.

It's grrrrrrreat.

Here's some reviews:

FF (2011): http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/669-canon70200f28ff
APS-C: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/197-canon-ef-70-200mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review

SLR Gear(APS-C 2009): http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/72/cat/11

I love the guy who took the bit where you said "Unfortunately my budget cannot stretch that far and is capped at £1000" and replied "If you earn money from these jobs you should really be investing in the 2.8 II, why spend £1000 for such an old lens?". LOVE HIM.

 

[Dylan777]

Get the Canon 2.8 (non IS). Or, for what you do, try out the 135L f/2.

+1

+2...I bought 135L few weeks ago. It's awesome

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/81tgObei/1/6092902

 

[Kristofgss]

Second hand 70-200 F2.8 L IS will be at that price as well, you can find a lot of those from everyone who didi the upgeade to the version II.

 

[bluegreenturtle]

You are forgetting the brand new Tamron 2.8 vc which is exactly at your budget MSRP ($1500). It supposedly is as sharp or even a bit sharper than the canon vII.

 

[candyman]

After reading your question the first thing that came up was the f/2.8 non-is. And for those specific situations use a monopod. It is easy to lift up / or close it in case you want to go hand-hold

 

[bseitz234]

I have the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS.

It's grrrrrrreat.

I love the guy who took the bit where you said "Unfortunately my budget cannot stretch that far and is capped at £1000" and replied "If you earn money from these jobs you should really be investing in the 2.8 II, why spend £1000 for such an old lens?". LOVE HIM.

Agreed!!

 

[wjm]

You are forgetting the brand new Tamron 2.8 vc which is exactly at your budget MSRP ($1500). It supposedly is as sharp or even a bit sharper than the canon vII.

If just bought this lens. I'm very satisfied with it up till now. AF is good (needed some micro adjustment), IQ seems good (no extensive testing yet).

 

[slogical]

Thank you for all of the replies.

The 135L is very tempting, everyone I have spoken to previously has recommended it. For now I need the flexibility of the 70-200 focal lengths so will probably go for the Canon 2.8 L non-IS and follow up with the 135L later this year.

I do have a budget because I am only part-time semi-pro and this year I will be purchasing a 6D + other lenses and need to at least cover the cost. I'd love the IS II but it will have to wait - as I'm sure anyone who is involved in concert photography will confirm there isn't a lot of money in it!

I had considered the Tamron VC as the reviews are good but the UK doesn't benefit from a direct exchange rate conversion of the US MSRP. The Canon 70-200 f2.8 L USM is £969 ($1521), IS II is £1799 ($2825), Tamron VC is £1299 ($2040)!

Thanks

 

[Derrick]

I have owned two Canon 70-200 F2.8 non IS lenses and without comparing them to anything similar was reasonably pleased with the results. I then found that my wife's Canon 100-400 was more contrasty and sharper with a more pleasing image at 100-200. The most amazing was when compared to a Canon 70-200 f4 IS - this lens was absolutely fantastic. In my opinion a good buy (always test first) is the original Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM EX APO (non IS). I rate the IQ higher, on the Sigma copy I have, than my two original Canon 70-200 2.8's. But best of all, if f4 is okay for you - the Canon 70-200 f4 IS.

 

[AvTvM]

Second hand 70-200 F2.8 L IS will be at that price as well, you can find a lot of those from everyone who didi the upgeade to the version II.

+1
I would definitely prefer a used, but well-kept 70-200 IS over a brand-new 70-200/2.8 non-IS. At concerts IS really is an asset.

 

[crasher8]

Don't overlook Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, amazing! At 1499 it's the next best thing to Canon's top 70-200 and hundreds less.

 

[Haydn1971]

Get the Canon 2.8 (non IS). Or, for what you do, try out the 135L f/2.

+1

+2...I bought 135L few weeks ago. It's awesome

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/81tgObei/1/6092902

At risk of nesting quotes...

+3 on the 135L - also works great with the 1.4x extender

 

[AvTvM]

At risk of nesting quotes...
+3 on the 135L - also works great with the 1.4x extender

Yes, it is a great lens. But it might be too long in the studio and it may not be flexible enough when covering vraious concerts at various venues ... and putting on and off a teleconverter is definitely no option in a concert situation. ;-)

 

[Hannes]

If you don't need weather sealing I'd go for the sigma. It is in most reviews sharper than canon's v1 and a fair bit cheaper. If you are happy buying used though the canon 2.8 IS can often be found for less than £1000

 

[bholliman]

At risk of nesting quotes...
+3 on the 135L - also works great with the 1.4x extender

Yes, it is a great lens. But it might be too long in the studio and it may not be flexible enough when covering vraious concerts at various venues ... and putting on and off a teleconverter is definitely no option in a concert situation. ;-)

+4 on the 135L! Awesome lens.

The 135L has a 36" minimum focal distance, less than the 47" for the 70-200 2.8 zoom. I find the 135L very useful indoors on a full format camera. On a crop body it will probably be too long for a studio.