Which 70-200 should I buy - or should I wait?

[boogaloo]

Hi folks

Looking for the benefit of your wisdom. I'm fairly sure I read a while ago that Sigma were planning to update their current 70-200 f2.8 lens, and I believe Canon are also working one a new one. I do a fair bit of sports photography (very amateurish) and currently use either my 130mm portrait lens or my 70-300L when doing action shots.

I'd absolutely love the 70-200L IS f2.8 canon but it's an enormous amount of money for me to spend. I also think I read somewhere that this lens is due to be updated fairly soon and would be gutted if I dropped the cash then it was refreshed.

I hear decent things about the Sigma 70-200 EX DG OS USM but again I am fairly sure I read that they're releasing a new version of this.

I know Tamron also do a similar lens but know less about that.

Bad time to buy a 70-200mm if I can wait 6 months? What would you do I my position? All views very welcome.

Boog

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Now is a great time to buy a Canon 70-200, either f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS II. Don't bother with the others. You could be waiting for years for a update, and they still might not beat those two Canon lenses.

I have not heard of Canon working on a new version, the f/2.8 is still a new model as lenses go, and the f/4 IS is also superb.

 

[IglooEater]

I have the Canon and of course it is excellent. One of my brothers has the Tamron and loves it. The only big drawback of the Tamron is teleconverter performance imo.

 

[e_honda]

I'd absolutely love the 70-200L IS f2.8 canon but it's an enormous amount of money for me to spend. I also think I read somewhere that this lens is due to be updated fairly soon and would be gutted if I dropped the cash then it was refreshed.

I don't think the 70-200 II is going to be updated anytime soon. It was introduced in 2010. I don't see it being refreshed until 2020 at the earliest. The 70-200 II is pretty much hailed as being a more or less flawless product with very little to complain about. It's just the size/weight and price that can be a turn off to some people.

Highly praised products like 100-400 are slow to get updated. Took 16 years for a new 100-400 to be introduced. The 135 L is 20 years old and still hasn't been refreshed. The 400 L F5.6 was introduced in 1993 or something and is still going.

Something like the 16-35 II (introduced in 2007) was refreshed "relatively" quickly because it was considered flawed and needed improvement. That same level of urgency in improvement doesn't apply to the 70-200 II.

And if it is refreshed, I'm guessing the image quality will only be marginally better. What they'll likely do is make the lens lighter and more easy to handle.

 

[retroreflection]

Spend the six months looking for a good deal on a used Canon 2.8.
You can't have mine.

 

[sanj]

Friend.
You describe yourself as an 'amateur'. So the current lens is just great! You do not need to wait for the newer lens. What difference? Any 'professional' can shoot without the newer version for years and years and create powerful photos.
You concerned about the price, then the newer lens will be more expensive anyways.
If you do not need the f2.8 then the f4 lens is perfect. Cheaper and lighter. You can run around and position yourself better for the cycling shots.

 

[MrFotoFool]

As others have said the Canon is too new to be refreshed for at least several years. A couple years ago I bought the original (non IS) Canon 70-200 f2.8 which at the time was still being produced alongside the IS version 2. The reason is it was a thousand dollars less and I could not afford the IS version 2 (which by all accounts is stellar and the way to go if you can afford it). I just checked Adorama and it looks like my non IS is no longer in production but I LOVE it and if you can find a used one in good condition that might be a way to go. Works well with 1.4x extender as well (though autofocus may slow a bit making it unfeasible for fast action sports).

 

[pwp]

If you can get the $$ together, the EF 70-200 f/2.8isII is a staggering number of photographers favourite and most used lens. A MkIII is probably years away. Like Mt Spokane suggested, stick exclusively with either of the Canon 70-200 lenses. Forget the rest.

-pw

 

[cellomaster27]

Get a 70-200mm now. I have a F4 IS and I love it! I played with a friend's 2.8 IS II version... it's awesome but its pretty heavy and much more $$. I think you'll be happy with either lens. Get the F4 IS if you're looking to carry the lens around alot. Both are superb. I've tried the tamron and sigma. Don't think about the sigma (currently version) and the tamron. I was just never impressed.

Early congrats to whenever you get yourself one!

 

[boogaloo]

Thanks so much for all the replies folks! I genuinely thought that the 70-200L was going to be relaunched soon. Wonder where I heard that from.

I must say, I LOVE the SIGMA ART lenses I have at the moment and I can't help wondering what a revised sigma would be like. Though, of course, they haven't gone for weather sealing.

Thanks for the advice. Will start looking out for bargains!

 

[Ozarker]

Of course your budget will be a big factor.

This is a very personal choice.

One thing I would not worry about is a refresh by Canon on the f/2.8 IS II.

I wouldn't allow myself to get caught up in the trap of always second guessing a purchase based on rumors about refreshes or upgrades. What is awesome today will still be awesome 5 or 10 years from now.

Get whatever you think you want and don't look back. Otherwise, you will never be satisfied.

I happen to enjoy heavy lenses. Makes me feel like I got my money's worth.

Good luck to you! Hope you are happy with whatever you get. Whether or not you are happy with your choice is all that matters.

 

[Mikehit]

Quite a few pros use the 70-200 f2.8 professionally but have the f4 version for personal use because of the size of the f2.8. So I guess it also depends on why you are wanting the f2.8.
The 70-300L is a very good lens in itself so you may not get a massive difference in sharpness but the shallow DOF at f2.8 will be very noticable.

 

[greger]

Buy the 70-200 f2.8 ll lens. I don't think it will be updated anytime soon as the current version is as sharp as the f4 IS USM version which is sharper than the original 2.8. Now the 2.8 ll and f4 IS USM are equally sharp according to information that I found online. It might go on sale on Black Friday. I bought the 100-400 vs l lens for longer reach. The vs ll looks and is better but I am happy! As far as weight. I hold onto the tripod mount with my lens cloth and find the weight ok.

 

[Buck]

Take a look at a 70-200ii in the Canon refurbished store, from time to time the will discount it a few hundred off the usual used price. You get a warranty as well as having at completely checked out. It did this this past spring as an upgrade from the first version.

 

[YuengLinger]

Thanks so much for all the replies folks! I genuinely thought that the 70-200L was going to be relaunched soon. Wonder where I heard that from.

I must say, I LOVE the SIGMA ART lenses I have at the moment and I can't help wondering what a revised sigma would be like. Though, of course, they haven't gone for weather sealing.

Thanks for the advice. Will start looking out for bargains!

Nice plug for Sigma. Anybody who has ever used a Canon 70-200mm can only chuckle.

The f/4 IS works great for street and travel photography because it's light, and for head shots because the IQ is wonderful. If you need the extra stop of aperture, the f/2.8 IS has amazing IQ and IS and bokeh, baby, bokeh.

 

[papa-razzi]

I have done quite a bit of sports photography, and the right lens really depends upon the sport, and the level of access you have to the action.

In general, things that matter - ability to set a high shutter speed, and the AF system of the camera.
In general, IS is a waste of money. You will be pushing your shutter speed up way past the point where IS is going to help you.

If you are doing inside sports (basketball, volleyball, etc.) - usually in poorly lighted gyms - then you need the fastest lenses you can, and you will need to push high ISO. If you can get close to the action, then the longer telephoto lenses aren't important. I found non-L fast primes are a very affordable solution.

If you are outside (football, track, soccer) then your 70-300L is a great lens. If you are shooting under the lights at night, then it gets more challenging and you need to spend big dollars because you need a fast, long telephoto.

 

[photojoern.de]

Now is a great time to buy a Canon 70-200, either f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS II. Don't bother with the others. You could be waiting for years for a update, and they still might not beat those two Canon lenses.

I have not heard of Canon working on a new version, the f/2.8 is still a new model as lenses go, and the f/4 IS is also superb.

I can only confirm this. Although I must admit that I did not have either the Sigma or the Tamron on my camera. If you read review in the web, Canon 70-200 always beats them.

If you don´t really need the f2.8 aperture, then the f4 70-200 II IS is awesome. Super crisp sharp, significantly lighter than the f2.8 models and only around 60% of the price of the Canon f2.8 70-200 L II.

If I was Canon, I would not really work on these two lenses. They can hardly go better.

 

[sanj]

Thanks so much for all the replies folks! I genuinely thought that the 70-200L was going to be relaunched soon. Wonder where I heard that from.

I must say, I LOVE the SIGMA ART lenses I have at the moment and I can't help wondering what a revised sigma would be like. Though, of course, they haven't gone for weather sealing.

Thanks for the advice. Will start looking out for bargains!

Nice plug for Sigma. Anybody who has ever used a Canon 70-200mm can only chuckle.

The f/4 IS works great for street and travel photography because it's light, and for head shots because the IQ is wonderful. If you need the extra stop of aperture, the f/2.8 IS has amazing IQ and IS and bokeh, baby, bokeh.

Not for me. The Bokeh on this lens is not great.

 

[sanj]

I have done quite a bit of sports photography, and the right lens really depends upon the sport, and the level of access you have to the action.

In general, things that matter - ability to set a high shutter speed, and the AF system of the camera.
In general, IS is a waste of money. You will be pushing your shutter speed up way past the point where IS is going to help you.

If you are doing inside sports (basketball, volleyball, etc.) - usually in poorly lighted gyms - then you need the fastest lenses you can, and you will need to push high ISO. If you can get close to the action, then the longer telephoto lenses aren't important. I found non-L fast primes are a very affordable solution.

If you are outside (football, track, soccer) then your 70-300L is a great lens. If you are shooting under the lights at night, then it gets more challenging and you need to spend big dollars because you need a fast, long telephoto.

Noooooo. IS makes any lens versatile. No no no.

 

[knkedlaya]

I use flash bouncing off ceiling or wall. I found ambient light inside the house of little use at 2.8 to keep focus sharp. My 7D not so good at higher ISO, with flash I get good results.