Opinion on 70-200 Options

[Luds34]

Hi folks,

For a few years I owned a Canon 70-200 f/4 (non IS). It was a great lens and took some of my favorite photos with it. Problem was, that is was just too long on crop and after I picked up an 85mm prime, I rarely ever used it.

However, after picking up a 6D I found the focal length so much more useful. However, I realized I wanted it to double as a portrait lens as well and decided I wanted an f/2.8 variant. So I sold it last month.

Even thought the street price is "only" $1800 on the holy grail of 70-200s, I'd feel guilty spending that kind of money on myself at the moment. So I'm trying to go a little bit more budget

Option One:
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS). I can get it locally used for $700. I'm use to not having IS so I know my limitations in that regard. I also know it's not weather sealed. I'm more curious how good is this lens optically? How close is it to the IS II? I always hear how the IS II is much better in the corners the version I, etc. but I don't have a feel for the non IS version. I know it's an older design but it seems like it is still quite good?

Option Two:
Tamron 70-200 VC. Either a used local copy or new import/grey market from ebay. Either way, we're look at $1k or less. Now this lens I'm very comfortable in it's IQ being very good. However, being 3rd party I always get a bit nervous with the focus system. It appears it locks on and focuses a static subject quick enough? But how about AI Servo, sports shooting, etc. Anyway have any experience? I get the feel/vibe this lens is 9/10 the Canon.

Thanks much in advance fellow shooters.

 

[sunnyVan]

Would you consider 135L or 100L?

 

[Luds34]

Would you consider 135L or 100L?

Instead of a 70-200?

The 100 f/2.8L IS macro lens I assume? Probably not as it is too close in FL to my 85 and is "only" f/2.8. I don't do much macro work but if I need it I feel I'm adequately covered by my 70D + EF-S 60mm

The 135L I've flirted with for years. I kind of gravitate towards primes so this would fit my motif. I may end up owning this one way or another. However as it stands now I think I need to have a 70-200 back in my kit. It's is just too versatile of a lens. Even though I didn't use the 70-200 a ton, it was the lens to use for kids sports, concerts, plays, swimming, etc.

 

[Loswr]

I absolutely relate to your feeling about the 70-200 range in crop, I bought the 70-200/2.8L IS II when I had a 7D, and found the focal range awkward. Once I got a FF body, it quickly became my second most-used lens. I also really liked 85mm on crop, and ended up getting the 135L for FF.

The 70-200/2.8L non-IS is optically very good, as long as you're ok with the lack of IS, I think it's a great choice.

 

[Luds34]

I absolutely relate to your feeling about the 70-200 range in crop, I bought the 70-200/2.8L IS II when I had a 7D, and found the focal range awkward. Once I got a FF body, it quickly became my second most-used lens. I also really liked 85mm on crop, and ended up getting the 135L for FF.

The 70-200/2.8L non-IS is optically very good, as long as you're ok with the lack of IS, I think it's a great choice.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way. 70-200 on crop is just a little too specialized, fitting into mostly a sports/wildlife lens. The doors just "open up" on full frame, at least in my humble opinion.

Okay, so optically the old school 70-200 f/2.8 is pretty sound you're saying. Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.

 

[Loswr]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way. 70-200 on crop is just a little too specialized, fitting into mostly a sports/wildlife lens.

In my case, I also had the 100-400 at the time, so the 70-200 was too long indoors and not long enough (by comparison) outdoors. The 70-200 on crop was good for outdoor events and back yard shooting, mostly. On FF, it still works great for that...and so much more.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS is excellent and sharp. Its a very good choice for someone who knows how to deal with lack of IS. I've had two or more of each of these lenses, and I liked the non-IS version very much.

The 135mm f/2L is equivalent to 85mm on your crop, and you will love it.

 

[Luds34]

Gentlemen, thanks for your advice (or maybe you're just trying to keep your post totals climbing ). I'll see who else chimes in between now and tomorrow morning. But my thinking is this, for the price I probably can't go wrong with the 70-200 non IS. I can use it for a year or two and sell it for probably a minimal loss if/when I'm ready to upgrade. So I'll reach out to the seller and see if I can check it out this weekend. Could be useful to have for the July 4th holiday.

 

[TGCorneliussen]

I absolutely relate to your feeling about the 70-200 range in crop, I bought the 70-200/2.8L IS II when I had a 7D, and found the focal range awkward. Once I got a FF body, it quickly became my second most-used lens. I also really liked 85mm on crop, and ended up getting the 135L for FF.

The 70-200/2.8L non-IS is optically very good, as long as you're ok with the lack of IS, I think it's a great choice.

i agree with this as well (although my FF is about 6 months away i have played with the 5D III and cannot wait for christmas!)

the IS II version is an investment....i plunged deep and brought it and have not regretted it. its just an amazing lens. the non IS version is very good as well....if you can pick up that and the 135 f2 i would do it. the 135 is currently my favourite lens. just an overall fantastic lens and one of my firsts.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way. 70-200 on crop is just a little too specialized, fitting into mostly a sports/wildlife lens. The doors just "open up" on full frame, at least in my humble opinion.

Okay, so optically the old school 70-200 f/2.8 is pretty sound you're saying. Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.

I haven't tried the old 70-200mm (non IS) but the optical formula is very similar to the 70-200mm f2.8L IS (Mark I) which I had it in the past. Many reports suggest that the Tamron beats the Mark I and the non-IS version in terms of IQ and sharpness so, if you are in the budget I'd take the Tamron instead, unless you need tha weather sealing.
I sold the Mark I and bouhgt the Mark II and I wouldn't be happier of my decision.
I also didn't use the 70-200mm FL much until I moved to FF cameras.

 

[Luds34]

Yep, based on everything I've seen and assuming all good copies of the lenses, the Tamron VC will be sharper then the non-IS Canon. And then the IS II will be a tiny bit sharper then that. However it doesn't seem to be noticeable in normal shooting and one really has to pixel peep and/or shoot lens charts. I think the bigger issue is not the sharpness, but the old lens (like a lot of Canon's older designs) suffers a bit of CA, but again nothing too bad for normal shooting.

In the end I picked up a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non IS from an original owner who purchase it only 3 years ago, has a 2012 manufacturing date. Other then scrapes on the hood, it's it perfect condition. Even with the Tamron going for ~$1k on ebay for an import, I was still able to get this for a couple hundred cheaper and I think I feel good with the decision.

Thinking about taking it to the lake over the 4th of July and testing it out.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions and feedback.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Gentlemen, thanks for your advice (or maybe you're just trying to keep your post totals climbing

So much for trying to help answer a question.

 

[Luds34]

Gentlemen, thanks for your advice (or maybe you're just trying to keep your post totals climbing

So much for trying to help answer a question.

It was a joke (a bad one I'd admit), some good natured teasing based on the fact that the two people who came to respond each have astronomical post totals. I would have thought the winking emoticon would have made that pretty clear. Sorry if I offended.

 

[painya]

I have the 70-200 IS vI and I love it... A LOT. It's an incredible lens, focuses quickly, and is even sharper on a full frame than the VII for some reason. (not sharper on crop sensors) You can not go wrong with this lens, and the IS IS is greatly appreciated, I can comfortably shoot at 1/60 at 200mm, maybe I could push it further, but I don't push my luck ;D ;D Hope that helps! I shoot sports and portraits.

 

[JumboShrimp]

I first purchased the 70-200/2.8L IS and thought it was an excellent lens, but a tad heavy and big. Then I found a 70-200/4L IS at a good price and purchased it, too. Now I rarely grab the f/2.8 but instead opt for the f/4. It is smaller, lighter, and more versatile IMHO. I just can't tell the differences in IQ for what I use them for. As a consequence, the f/2.8 will soon be for sale. The ultimate question is, of course, "Do you really need an f/2.8?" Just a thought, and good luck.

 

[Halfrack]

The 70-200 non-IS has a few qualities few are aware of. For starters, it's a beast, and if you're shooting sports or such, you can't go wrong as IS is only for slow shots. The lens is parafocal - as in you can focus, then zoom in/out and the focus is still sharp - no true in most lenses. At $700 I'd jump all over it and if you don't like it, the damage to flip it is minimal. I loved mine, sold it when funding other gear I couldn't use it with.

 

[MickDK]

EF 70-200mm F2.8L (non-IS) is not weather sealed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_70%E2%80%93200mm_lens

And is less sharp than EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

EF 70-200mm F2.8L Mark II is much sharper than the Mark I at max aperture - and has better micro contrast and improved IS (4 stop vs 3 stop):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I would go for the Tamron 70-200mm or the EF 70-200mm F2.8L II.

 

[Luds34]

The 70-200 non-IS has a few qualities few are aware of. For starters, it's a beast, and if you're shooting sports or such, you can't go wrong as IS is only for slow shots. The lens is parafocal - as in you can focus, then zoom in/out and the focus is still sharp - no true in most lenses. At $700 I'd jump all over it and if you don't like it, the damage to flip it is minimal. I loved mine, sold it when funding other gear I couldn't use it with.

Exactly my thinking. The one I ended up getting I paid $800 for as the local camera store was willing to pay $700 for it. As my buddy said, $100 isn't too bad to end up being flat out wrong.

 

[NancyP]

If you don't need f/2.8, the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS version is very light and very sharp. My interests run to landscape in this focal length range, so it is perfect for me.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm a big bloke 6ft 4, built like a brick outhouse... I tried the 70-200 2.8 IS II as a replacement for my 70-300 non L and thought flipping heck, it's heavy !

I already had a 135L f2.0 so ended up upgrading to a 70-300L giving me the flexibility of reach and speed for a similar price. I've considered moving to the 100-400 for extra reach but currently content with cropping into the amazing images the 6D gives me... Although I could be tempted with adding the rumoured 500 f5.6 IS if it ever materialises ;-)

In summary, just because everyone says you need the triad of f2.8 zooms, it doesn't always mean it's good for you - go outside the box, see what works for you.