Best choice?

[Keagle]

After searching around...I haven't found many answers to my question.

I'm interested in the Canon 70-200mm L series. The f/2.8 IS is a no no, way out of my range. I'd like to pay around £500-550 max, and I live in the UK. I'd like the lens for wildlife and the odd portrait. Perhaps Horse's Jumping and the like too. Now, I'm pondering wether to just go for the f/4, the f/4 IS or the f/2.8. I have a nice steady tripod, originally intended for Camcorders yet works fine with my camera, but a bit heavy to carry around all the time. Which do you think would be the best for my needs? I don't mind a refurb or used lens. All the reviews say each is great, but having been into the local camera shop, they only had the f/4 and I couldn't try it out.

Thanks you!

[TPF Sponsor]

[soylentgreen]

The 70-200 f/4 L is an excellent lens. I had it in the pass and it performs flawlessly. That entire line from Canon is pretty good, so you really can't go wrong with any you choose. The larger aperature will help to stop action if you are going to shoot jumping horses, so you might want to look at the f/2.8. As long as there is sufficient light though you can live with the f/4. Sigma also makes a f/2.8 version that is suppose to be pretty good, but I personally stick to Canon if I can.

[Keagle]

Thanks for the reply - is the weather sealing to much of a problem or not? I'll most likely go for the f/4 or f/2.8 without IS following your reply, as I'm not sure I can grant paying double for the IS when I could get the f/2.8. I'll most likely be shooting horses in bright daylight - or good light, which may tilt the view to the f/4 version? Like today for example, I was shooting 5.6 @ 1/200+ or so. Do they keep their value? Can I sell it on and save for the 2.8 or IS version if need be?

My apologies for the questions, but as this will be my first big lens purchase, and probably my last for a while, it's best to get it right. Or so I think.

[usayit]

Thanks for the reply - is the weather sealing to much of a problem or not?

Depends.. is it important to you.. Personally weathersealing is nice but shouldn't be a deciding factor. Especially for you since your camera body isn't weathersealed either.

I'll most likely go for the f/4 or f/2.8 without IS following your reply, as I'm not sure I can grant paying double for the IS when I could get the f/2.8.

IS versus f/2.8.. two different tools for different jobs. There's a big difference between size and weight of the f/4 and f/2.8. That should be a deciding factor.. it was for me and I decided to sel the f/2.8.

I'll most likely be shooting horses in bright daylight - or good light, which may tilt the view to the f/4 version? Like today for example, I was shooting 5.6 @ 1/200+ or so. Do they keep their value? Can I sell it on and save for the 2.8 or IS version if need be?

The key you said is bright light. So as you said.. the f/4 should be an excellent choice. Canon's L lenses do hold their value. Pesonally, I would probably go with something with a longer focal range. Shooting wildlife and some sports, I found the 200mm focal length a little too short.

[Keagle]

Many thanks for your reply usayit, I'll go with the f/4 and put the rest of the money towards some extra stuff, perhaps the 50mm 1.8.

Although, with your reply about the focal length, would a teleconverter help at all? (1.4x). Or is worth looking at a completely different lens?

[soylentgreen]

The weather sealing is great on the L lenses. I have dust on my macro lens. How? I dunno. I take pretty good care of my gear. That for me is worth it right there. L lenses hold their value really well as long as you keep decent care of them. You should be able to recoupe about 80-90% of the value if you take care. A 1.4x TC will work, but images will be a bit soft wide open. Keep in mind you will ose 1 full stop with the 1.4X TC and AF slows down a bit also. Usable but a pain until you get a hang of it.

[usayit]

The weather sealing is great on the L lenses. I have dust on my macro lens. How? I dunno. I take pretty good care of my gear. That for me is worth it right there. L lenses hold their value really well as long as you keep decent care of them. You should be able to recoupe about 80-90% of the value if you take care. A 1.4x TC will work, but images will be a bit soft wide open. Keep in mind you will ose 1 full stop with the 1.4X TC and AF slows down a bit also. Usable but a pain until you get a hang of it.

Weather sealing only really makes sense if the body itself is also weather sealed.

The 1.4xTC will work and as already said there will be sacrifices (AF speed, 1stop, IQ, etc). On the other hand, many are happy with the Canon 1.4x teleconverter. I would not recommend the 2xTC in your case. If you need the reach on occasion then it is a great way to get the extra reach.

I personally love my 100-400mm L but that is just a personal choice from owning both the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 100-400mm for several years. I ended up keeping the 100-400 selling the 70-200mm f2.8.

Don't forget to look at offerings from Tokina, Tamron, and especially Sigma. Quite a lot of people are happy with their selections as well.

[Keagle]

Well, the 100-400mm is around £800 and I'm not sure that I can spend that much right now. Thank you both for your opinions on this matter Are there any great lenses I can get for around £600? If the 100mm-400mm is really that good, I can perhaps spend the extra £3-400 compared to the 70-200mm.

Actually, the 100mm-400mm has IS, which I have only just found out (Looking on eBay), which may slightly persuade me as the f/4 with IS is £600, and if the 100mm-400mm would be better for my needs...

[usayit]

As said... check out Sigma. There are more choices for your needs that might fit better in your budget. I've heard good things about Sigma's telephoto zooms but I have no experience with them. Just looking at their website I see the following possibilities:

70-200mm f2.8
100-300mm f4
170-500mm f5-6.3 "Bigma"

All you need now is to do some research... perhaps someone here can recommend a Sigma. You should also try to nail down if you really need the reach beyond the 200mm focal range. For me... it has always been a wonderful tool to have something that reaches well beyond the 200mm focal range and maintains good image quality.


Note: the Canon 100-400mm has a push pull zoom design (think trombone)... I like it as I can go from 100mm to the 400mm focal length extremely quickly. Others don't like it so much.

[Keagle]

Thanks for your reply. My current 70-210mm is a push-pull. Unfortunately, my max budget is really now in the £400range. I'm 14, and this is all I can persuade my parents to let me buy.

Perhaps when I'm older and can grab a job, I could get a 300mm/400mm prime or a 100-400mm to complement it.

I'm just checking out some of the Sigma lenses now.

[soylentgreen]

The EF 300 f/4 L IS is a great performer. I really like that lens and it is easy to hand-hold shots since it weighs like nothing. Paired with the 1.4x, you got a 420 f/5.6 L IS without too much loss in IQ. Now that's bang for your buck!

[Sideburns]

Just got my 70-200 4L...it's an amazing lens, and I'm sure you would be happy with it. I got no problems with my sample so far...

[Keagle]

Thanks I'll go for the 70-200mm f/4 and start saving for a 300 or even 400mm prime. :O Or just save for the 100-400mm.

Thank you!

[Keagle]

There's tooo many lenses in the world.

I'm now stuck behind a wall of 'em. I'm debating between the Canon 70-200mm f/4 as I originally was going to get, or the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. What I'd like to know is:
1. Is the lens hood on the Canon 70-200mm f/4 likely to cause ill-omens due to it's non-petalness?
2. With the Sigma, does it's Image Quality/Build Quality compare to the f/4, and will it hold it's value?
3. Will I need a tripod ring for the 70-200mm, if the lens is not handholdable?

I have a £500 budget, and I could possibly save for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS. A longer focal length would be nice, and I've looked at Bigma, but I'm not too sure of how the IQ would be at such a large range (Reviews for all of these lenses are mixed, hence my confusion). A Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS is pretty much out of my budget too. This is probably going to be my last major lens purchase for a loong while.

^^ Ignoring that ramble...my two original choices are the Canon f/4 and the Sigma f/2.8 (Both the 70-200mm versions). It's pretty much for most things, Wildlife, Horses, perhaps some time at Zoos and places like that, and just...most things.

Phew, now that's over...

Thank you! <3

[elsaspet]

If you are doing outdoor shooting the 70-200 f4 should work great for you. Or for that matter even an "off brand" like Tameron.
I've used Sigmas, but weren't really happy with them because they have a reddish cast, and I'm more of a "cool colors" person. If you like warm, the Sigma is great too.