Looking for a good telephoto zoom for Canon EOS 5DMKII

[klinic]

Just what it says in the title. Looking to build my kit now that I've gotten into photography. Despite being a beginner, I've landed myself a very nice body. I'm now looking to build my kit to compliment it. Currently have a very terrible 28-80 from my old EOS100.

Ideally this lens will compliment a 17-40mm for landscapes, and an 85mm prime. This will be used for portraits, wildlife photography and possibly some street photography, although I may want a smaller less conspicuous zoom for that.

Considering the Tamron 70-200 SP AF f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM and the Cano EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM.

I could consider the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM, but it significantly more expensive, how much nicer is it considered to be in general? Image Stabilisation is a big plus at that long a focal length.

Thanks for taking the time to make some suggestions.

 

[katerolla]

the canon IS IMO is not worth the extra money, I do have the Canon 70 - 200 F2.8 and love it, if i need a steady photo I just use a tripod

 

[usayit]

I found IS worth every penny.... still not a replacement for a tripod but a heck better in times when a tripod may not be practical.

my num 1 choice in you situation would be a used Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS (1st gen.. I shot with one.. great lens). My 2nd choice would be the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8.

 

[penfolderoldo]

Considering the Tamron 70-200 SP AF f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM and the Cano EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM.

I could consider the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM, but it significantly more expensive, how much nicer is it considered to be in general? Image Stabilisation is a big plus at that long a focal length.

Thanks for taking the time to make some suggestions.

I've never needed IS - I'm perfectly comfortable hand holding the 70 - 200, tho I guess for some people it may be a plus. IMHO not worth the extra £800 tho. I've got the non IS Canon 70-200 2.8 and it's absolutely fantastic - super sharp right thru the range. Distant 2nd choice would be the Sigma.

 

[klinic]

Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM for $1,699.95 at my local camera place. 

That's against the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM at $1,799.95 and the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II at $2,999.95


Is it worth losing the wide aperture for IS, or is the non IS 70-200 f2.8 better value?

 

[usayit]

My cousin chose the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) over my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS after trying it out for a few days. The f/4 version is also a very good choice (good IQ) and significantly more compact than the 70-200mm. It falls into the category of "its useless if you are unwilling to carry it".

It all depends on you.... define "better value".

 

[Big Mike]

The F4 version of Canon's 70-200mm IS, is said to be a very sharp lens. Better than the 2.8 (version I).
But that's probably why the F2.8 IS, was recently updated to the version II....but that also came with a $700+ price increase.

I would suggest getting an IS version (if you go with a Canon). It is very helpful, especially with a longer lens like this.

I would consider the F4 IS to be a good option if you can't (don't want to) spring for the 2.8 IS model. You do loose one stop, but on the plus side, your 5DmkII is one of the best cameras for high ISO performance, so you could make up the shutter speed with ISO very easily.
If you are a shallow DOF junkie though, you will probably want the F2.8. But you said that you'll have the 85mm prime (I'm guessing the F1.8 version)...then you'll have that for shallow DOF when you need it.

Also, the F4 is significantly smaller and lighter, which makes it easier to carry around and use. I use the F2.8 IS (version I) and it's a beast of a lens...too big and/or too heavy for some situation.