I am seriously considering the canon 70-200
my problem is im not sure wether I need to pay the extra for the IS- being its a big heavy lens I figure it may be necessary, but the fact they make them without says to me it may be possible to live with it.
who has this lens?? (in f2.8 or f4)
also tyring to work out if its worth the extra $ for the 2.8 or if f4 would be suffice.
It would be used for weddings, portraits, people etc on a 7D
f/2.8 is great. f/4 is also great (some say it is sharper than the f/2.8, though that is doubtful with the new version II of the f/2.8 lens).
I could not go past the f/2.8 - f/4 doesn't give enough subject isolation for portraiture at the shallow end (70mm). Also, lenses are always sharper "stopped down" a bit, and when you stop down f/4, you end up at f/5.6 very quickly, which is not a great portrait aperture. That f/2.8 can be really handy in lower light situations also, as well as sports where you want a faster shutter speed.
I find the IS invaluable for portraiture moreso than sports. I love that I can shoot at 1/60th at 200mm and keep my ISO low. I could do that without IS, but I would lose more shots due to camera shake than I do with it.
So, my vote is the f/2.8 IS - my second-most-used Canon lens.
@natandhayley I pretty much ditto Jinx above. I have the IS version (the older one) and it is truly one of my favorite lenses. The 2.8 is invaluable and for me the IS is a definite plus.
i have the canon 70-200L 2.8 non IS, an older model, have used the f4 and prefer the 2.8
i also have a sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and i say it gives just as good an image as the canon (my husband the canon snob doesnt agree) the only thing is sigma lenses zoom backwards, but they are a lot cheaper than the canons of the same kind - but my lenses are older than the new versions
I've got the 2.8 IS mk1 and love it. I use it on a 7D mainly for sports shots and zoo visits. As mentioned by jinx the IS isn't really useful for sport but given you'll be using it for basically still subjects you'll love the IS.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I could not go past the f/2.8 - f/4 doesn't give enough subject isolation for portraiture at the shallow end (70mm). Also, lenses are always sharper "stopped down" a bit, and when you stop down f/4, you end up at f/5.6 very quickly, which is not a great portrait aperture. That f/2.8 can be really handy in lower light situations also, as well as sports where you want a faster shutter speed.
I find the IS invaluable for portraiture moreso than sports. I love that I can shoot at 1/60th at 200mm and keep my ISO low. I could do that without IS, but I would lose more shots due to camera shake than I do with it.
So, my vote is the f/2.8 IS - my second-most-used Canon lens.
I hope that helps!
i also have a sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and i say it gives just as good an image as the canon (my husband the canon snob doesnt agree) the only thing is sigma lenses zoom backwards, but they are a lot cheaper than the canons of the same kind - but my lenses are older than the new versions
I'd certainly be going for the 2.8 IS.