[Railroader]

I sold a couple lenses recently. My Canon 10-22mm EF-S and my Canon 200mm L prime. I've got about $1200 to drop on a new lens and have been wanting to get a 70-200 zoom for a while. So, I decided to check out the Canon 70-200mm L f/2.8 and I LOVE IT!!! But I didn't pull the trigger and buy it for some reason.

But I am afraid I am not checking out all that is out there. I want a zoom that is between 70-200 but I will consider other options.

I don't think the 70/200 f/4.0 is wide enough for me. The DOF is not shallow enough for my style. Image stabilization is not a big selling point to me either.

I also need something that will work well with a Canon 2X teleconverter.

WARNING: when the new lens is finally chosen and purchased expect a number of photo related posts to appear.

[The Placid Casual]

I so very nearly bought this lens a few months back (but stuck with my very trusty cheap and cheerful Sigma 70-300mm in the end and bought a 50mm instead!), but faltered at the last minute! I'll be more than interested in seeing the pics!

[Eug]

I bought the f/4 70-200L with IS. I like the f/2.8, but didn't want to deal with the weight.

[Jawbone54]

Why is image stabilization not a selling point for you? I've used the f/2.8 both with and without the IS, and I noticed some problems due to camera shake without it, especially while indoors.

That being said, I own neither, but really, really, really, really, really want one.

As for the photo-related posts...bring them on.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I bought the f/4 70-200L with IS. I like the f/2.8, but didn't want to deal with the weight.

Ahhh... the f/4 is significantly lighter? I did not know that.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Ahhh... the f/4 is significantly lighter? I did not know that.

Yes, noticeably lighter.

f/4L - 705 g
f/4L IS - 760 g
f/2.8L - 1310 g
f/2.8L IS - 1470 g

However, if you don't want an f/4, then that's not going to help you obviously.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Why is image stabilization not a selling point for you? I've used the f/2.8 both with and without the IS, and I noticed some problems due to camera shake without it, especially while indoors.

That being said, I own neither, but really, really, really, really, really want one.

As for the photo-related posts...bring them on.

I rarely have a problem with image blur due to camera shake. If I am ever in those situations I have a monopod with me and that eliminates the problem.

Plus, at more than double the price $2600 vs. $1100 it becomes a very major non-issue for me

And as Eug stated, i want the f/2.8 and I would not be happy with the f/4 IS lens. Just not shallow enough in the depth of field at f/4

fredmirand.com reviewers give the non-IS lens a 9.8 and the Is lens a 9.4 rating. I have read complaints about the IS version being softer focusing than the non-IS version. But Canon has been quick to repair any problems people have with them.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yes, noticeably lighter.

f/4L - 705 g
f/4L IS - 760 g
f/2.8L - 1310 g
f/2.8L IS - 1470 g

However, if you don't want an f/4, then that's not going to help you obviously.

Those are remarkable numbers. I ignorantly assumed the opposite would be true. Must be much larger optics are needed for the f/2.8 lenses.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Must be much larger optics are needed for the f/2.8 lenses.

Yes of course. Generally for the same image quality class, the faster lens is going to be physically larger.

I agree f/4 can sometimes be little lacking in terms of shallowness of field. However, I personally simply would be too lazy to carry an f/2.8 70-200L around, so the point is moot. Cost is also an issue of course. If I got the f/2.8, I'd probably still want the IS, and those things are crazy expensive.

BTW, monopod with IS often works better than monopod alone. Of course, a tripod probably is the best. Similarly though, I don't like carrying around a massive tripod with me most of the time, so that doesn't help me. I usually just carry two lenses, either 24-105 IS with 10-22, or else the 24-105 IS with 70-200 IS, and I usually don't carry a monopod... but I likely have very different shooting habits than you do.

P.S. The Canon cameras generally work better with f/2.8 if you're using autofocus, so there's a benefit there too for going f/2.8.

[Demonhood]

you build muscles faster carrying around the 2.8

[OreoCookie]

Do you have a FF or a crop body?
If you have a crop body, I suggest you have a look at Tokina's and Sigma's 50-135/150 zooms. They are significantly lighter (845 g and 780 g, respectively) and (this is important) have a much better minimum focusing distance (1.0 m). Plus, the focal length range corresponds to about 70-200 on FF. I have a 2.8/80-200 zoom and I find 80 (approximately 120 mm on full frame!) too long for many portraits already. The minimum focusing distance is about 1.8~2.0 meters, also a tad long.

Sigma also makes a 70-200 zoom which is cheaper, but about as heavy. You can also find used Tokina 80-200 zooms which also have a very good reputation. My cousin (a professional photographer) has one and loves it.

Concerning weight, I actually love the additional weight of my bazooka (a friend invented this nickname), but it is cumbersome to carry it around at times. It's not your average `walk-around lens'.
I also prefer a wider aperture to IS/VR/whatever-acronym: IS cannot compensate for motion of the subject, it just compensates the motion of your camera. It gives me more creative leeway, I can have a dof in the range of a few centimeters! I'm still learning to use it properly as you can see here: the shot was hand-held at 1/60 s and 135 mm (!). Me loves bazooka.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

you build muscles faster carrying around the 2.8

I actually read this on the fredmiranda review forums from a woman.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Do you have a FF or a crop body?
If you have a crop body, I suggest you have a look at Tokina's and Sigma's 50-135/150 zooms. They are significantly lighter (845 g and 780 g, respectively) and (this is important) have a much better minimum focusing distance (1.0 m). Plus, the focal length range corresponds to about 70-200 on FF. I have a 2.8/80-200 zoom and I find 80 (approximately 120 mm on full frame!) too long for many portraits already. The minimum focusing distance is about 1.8~2.0 meters, also a tad long.

Sigma also makes a 70-200 zoom which is cheaper, but about as heavy. You can also find used Tokina 80-200 zooms which also have a very good reputation. My cousin (a professional photographer) has one and loves it.

Concerning weight, I actually love the additional weight of my bazooka (a friend invented this nickname), but it is cumbersome to carry it around at times. It's not your average `walk-around lens'.
I also prefer a wider aperture to IS/VR/whatever-acronym: IS cannot compensate for motion of the subject, it just compensates the motion of your camera. It gives me more creative leeway, I can have a dof in the range of a few centimeters! I'm still learning to use it properly as you can see here: the shot was hand-held at 1/60 s and 135 mm (!). Me loves bazooka.

I have a crop sensor. An XTi, and I saw the 70-200 f/2.8 on a XTi body and it was kind of funny. It was like a bazooka mounted on a bb-gun. But the pictures were amazing!

I hadn't considered a Tokina. I have zero experience with them and have not read much about them. I will look around and do some serious investigating on Tokina. You said "used". Are they not manufacturing them anymore?

Oops, I forgot to add, I owned a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and found it a little soft. And as I owned the 200mm L at the same time I returned the Sigma lens and just kept the 200mm L. But it did find the focal range comfortable, but as you said, a bit limited. The 50-150 Sigma piqued my interest, but it doesn't get the high reviews like the 70-200 2.8 L does.

The DOF that f/2.8 produces is amazing at the higher focal lengths. I feel I'd be disappointed with f/4.0.

I had thought about buying some extension tubes to compensated for the min focusing distance. Anyone have any experience with those?

EDIT: Nice pictures btw

[OreoCookie]

Thanks
Regarding the focal length, Tokina and Sigma are the only two that are offering this kind of focal length (hello, Nikon, Canon, anybody home?!?). They are certainly not L/Nikon Pro glass, but they come very close. In some rare instances, they make some lenses that are as good as original manufacturer glass (Tokina 2.8/28-70 Pro SV comes to mind).

Tokina doesn't make the 80-200 anymore, they focus on crop sensors instead. Tokina is essentially Hoya, the company that produces most of the optical glass in Japan. They know what to do. I like their lenses, because (i) I can afford them and (ii) they are optically and mechanically very close to the original. I tried the 12-24, the 16-50 (probably my next purchase) and the 50-135: I got the same impression as with my cousin's 80-200 and my 28-70: built like tanks. You can feel the metal, the focus ring and the zoom ring turn smoothly, I felt like Tim Taylor in a tool store!

So if you prefer the focal length range 50-135/150, you have no choice but going Tokina or Sigma. IMHO it's much more important which focal lengths are more useful to you (and they weigh half, too). I shoot a lot of things indoors and my bazooka (as much as I love it) has certain limitations that those two don't have. Optically, they are not on par with the much more expensive Canon and Nikon glass. But I think they're worth the money and have better price/performance.

I want to replace the much used 18-70 standard kit lens I have (it was used by a now pro photographer, the two of us have focussing issues) with the 16-50.

I'm not sure what kind of money you have, but I think you should think about the focal length range first and then decide on the lens. What are you shooting? Do you want to shoot indoors or outdoors?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Thanks
Regarding the focal length, Tokina and Sigma are the only two that are offering this kind of focal length (hello, Nikon, Canon, anybody home?!?). They are certainly not L/Nikon Pro glass, but they come very close. In some rare instances, they make some lenses that are as good as original manufacturer glass (Tokina 2.8/28-70 Pro SV comes to mind).

Tokina doesn't make the 80-200 anymore, they focus on crop sensors instead. Tokina is essentially Hoya, the company that produces most of the optical glass in Japan. They know what to do. I like their lenses, because (i) I can afford them and (ii) they are optically and mechanically very close to the original. I tried the 12-24, the 16-50 (probably my next purchase) and the 50-135: I got the same impression as with my cousin's 80-200 and my 28-70: built like tanks. You can feel the metal, the focus ring and the zoom ring turn smoothly, I felt like Tim Taylor in a tool store!

So if you prefer the focal length range 50-135/150, you have no choice but going Tokina or Sigma. IMHO it's much more important which focal lengths are more useful to you (and they weigh half, too). I shoot a lot of things indoors and my bazooka (as much as I love it) has certain limitations that those two don't have. Optically, they are not on par with the much more expensive Canon and Nikon glass. But I think they're worth the money and have better price/performance.

I want to replace the much used 18-70 standard kit lens I have (it was used by a now pro photographer, the two of us have focussing issues) with the 16-50.

I'm not sure what kind of money you have, but I think you should think about the focal length range first and then decide on the lens. What are you shooting? Do you want to shoot indoors or outdoors?

For the 70-200 I mostly shoot outdoors, but 80% is portraits. The rest is ~15% action/sports and the rest macro/floral/insects. With an occasional indoors event such as a wedding or other ceremony.

I have a VERY large living room. Probably ~40 ft. long and I am able to take "spy" pictures of my kids playing with the longer lenses. But a 50-150 would be much more comfortable indoors.

Now you really have my interest piqued about Tokina. Looks like I know what my afternoon is going to be spent doing. I have been impressed with Sigma. I have the 30mm f/1.4 and I love it. it is sharp from corner to corner and the colors are perfect. It is my family party and group photography lens. I also use it a lot for getting up close to the kids when they are playing and there's very little light. I also have a Canon 50 mm f/1.8 (CHEAP!) lens for when I want to be further away.

Canon certainly does need to improve their focus distances. They did a great job on the P&S S2 IS I have. I can focus on objects that are actually touching the lens with that model!

[OreoCookie]

Just try them. However, when I was in the US last year, I had trouble finding shops carrying Tokina lenses (not sure why). They are available at the usual online shops (bhphoto, amazon, etc.), though.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Just try them. However, when I was in the US last year, I had trouble finding shops carrying Tokina lenses (not sure why). They are available at the usual online shops (bhphoto, amazon, etc.), though.

Doing some quick searching, and perusing their website (Tokina), I am finding them hard to find. Amazon only seems to carry the full line-up.

I don't think the 50-135mm is enough for me. For what I want right now. I am pretty hooked on the 200mm (which is 320mm on the 1.6 crop body). It sounds like a great walk around lens for zoo trips, family gatherings, or street photography. Also, being black and not a common name would make it safer to carry around in touristy areas. I will probably pick it up soon after I find the current lens I am looking for.

I might try the Sigma 70-200 2.8 again. I have read that some models are soft, but if you get a softer focusing one that sending it to Sigma they will calibrate it and then it is crystal clear.

But there's just something about that L mystique...

[OreoCookie]

… if you can afford it
I know I wish I could afford the 2.8/17-55 Nikkor. Problem is that it's almost three times as expensive as the Tokina. C'est la vie!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

… if you can afford it
I know I wish I could afford the 2.8/17-55 Nikkor. Problem is that it's almost three times as expensive as the Tokina. C'est la vie!

The Canon 2.8 L is only about 15% more than the Sigma.

There are advantages either way.

Sigma
Pros:
Black case - lower visual profile
Slightly cheaper - but not much

Cons:
Possible to get a lower quality model - weeks to wait for calibration
not an L

Canon
Pros:
L !!!

Cons:
White - stick out screaming steal me!!!

What about Tamron? I always thought they were budget oriented brand. Any experiences?

[Eug]

What bugged me about Sigma is the one Sigma lens I bought wouldn't work on newer Canon cameras.

OTOH, Sigma's warranty in Canada is super long. I think it was something like 7 years (!) when I checked last year, at least for the model I was looking at. I don't know if that was a short term promotion or what, but 7 years is nonetheless impressive for a lens warranty.

[Railroader]

I bit the bullet and purchased the 70-200 f/2.8 L! I rarely make an impulse purchase such as this. The return policy is very good. 90 days with receipt, no restocking fees, no questions.

I was driving past a local camera shop, went in, and asked for $100 off the asking price. He said no, but he threw in about $90 worth of accessories. So, I got the lens, UV filter, extra lens cap, lens cap tether, and some cleaning fluid and papers for just under $1200.

We have a dinner date this evening, so sample pictures will have to wait. Sorry.

[Railroader]

First two pictures.

Just a shot at my messy desk. I focused on the lightbulb.

At 70mm (w/crop factor = 112mm) f/2.8 ISO 1600 shutter @ 1/160s:

Large

And zoomed in at 200mm (w/crop factor = 320mm) f/2.8 ISO 1600 handheld shutter @ 1/125s

Large

Lit only by a 16w CFL bulb.

I am happy.

I can't wait to point it at the kids tomorrow.

[OreoCookie]

Wow, good deal. Enjoy your new lens. And yes, we do expect more pictures!

[Demonhood]

good choice. i'm sure you'll be happy with it.

[Railroader]

Went for a walk in the woods today. Very little wildlife, but the weather was sunny, clear, and slightly below freezing. I took this shot of the blue sky with the white bark of the tree to contrast with it.



More photos here: All were hand held, some at 1/30s even.

70-200mm f/2.8 L- powered by SmugMug




At 70mm


And at 200mm


With 2x extender and handheld indoor lighting from windows only