I'm considering getting the EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM

caspertodd · Apr 21, 2008

The price of this lens seems really good for what you get. I currently have the EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 III USM lens. Would I notice considerable differnce in going to the L lenses? Enough to go ahead and buy the 70-200mm? I mainly will be taking portraits of my wife and daughter, and pics of my dogs in the back yard. Will also be using it for my vacation to Rome later in the year. Other options that I am looking at is to just wait (after my vacation) and possibly get the 70-200mm f/2.8L or wait even longer and get it with IS.

Any thoughts? Are there other brands that I should look at that are as good or better and cheaper? I have a Rebel XT body, and I really don't see me upgrading it right now, I love that thing!

asfixiate · Apr 21, 2008

You would notice differences in low light, moving targets, focusing faster, built more sturdy, cooler looking attached to your camera, umm what else.

portraits of your daughter you can go with the 85mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1... for about 1,000 dollars cheaper than an L lense plus you could see sharper images. What you have is fine as well with the proper lighting.

the non IS version of the 70-200 is about 800 dollars cheaper. only you'd probably need a tripod. What you have is fine if it works for you.

I have the 75-300mm you are referencing and its fine and I enjoy it but in pretty controlled environments(good lighting, slow to still targets). I'm getting the non IS version of the 70-200 L probably to cover portraits that the 50mm or 85mm wouldn't.

You're talkign about a 150 dollar lense vs 500-1300 lenses. Sure one is better and more capable than the other but it comes down to what do you need and what you need it for. Budget, etc.

Aren't all 2.8L's IS?

Village Idiot · Apr 21, 2008

The non IS f/4 is about $600 new, it's only about $400 difference.

If I were you, I'd look at the 70-200 f/2.8 without the IS. It's about the same price as the 70-200 f/4 IS, has a wider constant aperture, and has much better bokeh. You just have to ask yourself if you're really going to need IS that much. If not, the 70-200 f/2.8 would be a better choice, in my opinion.

caspertodd · Apr 21, 2008

Yeah, I was just curious if it was worth the upgrade. I have to say I am pretty happy with the 300m, but that is all I know. I have never used an 'L' lens, so maybe I just never need to try one... I had a cheap pair of sunglasses, and I loved them until I looked through a pair of my wife's Maui Jims, now I own a pair.

They do have the non IS version of the 2.8 for $1140 at Amazon.

JimmyO · Apr 21, 2008

I would go for the f2.8 if you are going to be doing portraits. But the 70-200 f/4 is still great (friend has one) Its alot smaller so it would be nice for that vacation.

Village Idiot · Apr 21, 2008

Also check out the classified section at www.photography-on-the.net forums. It's a Canon DSLR forum and you can probably find that lens for $950-$1000. Most used equipment bought from there is in mint condition. I picked up my 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $1450 there and it was mint.

Alex_B · Apr 21, 2008

Becky is selling one here on the forum.

She is not based in the US though, but if you happen to come to Europe ....

randerson07 · Apr 21, 2008

I have the f/4 non IS version, my woman has the 75-300 IS USM, and my mother has the f/4 IS version. I got mine used for about $475 shipped and couldnt be happier, sometimes I wish I had a little more reach but the lens is great. Its super Sharp, autofocus is fast and nearly silent, and its built like a tank.

The 75-300 IS USM is also a good lens, has a little longer reach, is also pretty quiet with good quick autofocus, its just lacking that L build quality.

While I havent used the f/4 IS a whole lot, the few times I have was with a 1.4x tele on it and I really liked the results, was it worth the extra cash for the IS, thats up to you. But if i know im going to be needing IS I might as will use a mono or tripod which would work with any lens and is probably cheaper rather than the IS which is lens specific.

Village Idiot · Apr 21, 2008

randerson07 said:
I have the f/4 non IS version, my woman has the 75-300 IS USM, and my mother has the f/4 IS version. I got mine used for about $475 shipped and couldnt be happier, sometimes I wish I had a little more reach but the lens is great. Its super Sharp, autofocus is fast and nearly silent, and its built like a tank.

The 75-300 IS USM is also a good lens, has a little longer reach, is also pretty quiet with good quick autofocus, its just lacking that L build quality.

While I havent used the f/4 IS a whole lot, the few times I have was with a 1.4x tele on it and I really liked the results, was it worth the extra cash for the IS, thats up to you. But if i know im going to be needing IS I might as will use a mono or tripod which would work with any lens and is probably cheaper rather than the IS which is lens specific.

Try using a tripod at a wedding. That's aboot all I have to say aboot that.

randerson07 · Apr 21, 2008

LOL good point.

But at a wedding how often do you need 200mm of reach?

Ive never shot a wedding and never will, unless its for a friend, but the weddings I have been to since i started noticing photogs, Ive havent seen them use many long zooms, they are usually right up in the action.

Mav · Apr 21, 2008

If I shot Canon, the 70-200 f/4L IS is one of the first lenses I'd pickup, along with an EF-S 10-22, and then either an EF 24-105 f/4L or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. One of the things I love the most about the Canon system is that they actually believe in making f/4 glass. With Nikon it's either f/5.6 junk that's too slow, or f/2.8 stuff that's way too friggin heavy and expensive with little to nothing in between. It's frustrating. Here's a review of the lens by a primarily Nikon guy.

I feel the same way about it as he does. Recently I've had a big case of Lens Lust over the EF 24-105 f/4L. It'd be absolutely perfect for shooting around my house. Wide enough for group shots, but still long enough to get into the portrait range. Nikon has nothing similar. grrrrrr :grumpy:

Buszaj · Apr 21, 2008

Have a look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

That One Guy · Apr 21, 2008

I own the non IS version and use an XT. I shoot portraits, still life, products with strobes and/or off camera flash so the need for IS wasn't a requirement when I made my purchase.

I will say the lens is super sharp. Colors are very vivid. Contrast is excellent.

I have never used the Sigma you mentioned, but I would say the L lens would be a noticeable improvement.