70 - 200 for canon, what to buy?

Associate
Joined
28 Feb 2009
Posts
758
I have a 6D and want a 70 - 200, I currently have the 70 - 300 and although I get by with it it's about time I purchased a decent zoom.

Just wondered if anyone had any input on what to get? I have enough to buy the Canon F2.8 IS, but would love to save some cash so I can buy a few extras I have been after too!

I have been looking at the Canon F4 but also the Tamron F2.8 with VC is only £600, anyone have any wise words of wisdom to help sway my decision? Obviously anything is going to be an upgrade from the cheapo I'm using at the moment :p
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Dec 2003
Posts
16,056
The two basic questions you need to answer are f/2.8 vs f/4 and IS vs non-IS.

Do you need the f/2.8? Are you often working in low light where it would be a benefit or need the shallower DoF? Bear in mind that even f/4 produces a decently shallow DoF on full frame so may be sufficient?

Regards IS, it is very useful at the long end of a 70-200, not just for low shutter speeds but also framing/composition. That said if you're most often shooting moving targets it won't be as useful as for static ones.

All the current variants are decent, with the f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS II being the stand-out performers. Steer clear of the f/2.8 IS Mk1 though.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
2,292
Location
Sarf Lahndahn
If you can afford it and can cope with a fat heavy lens then I'd say f2.8 every time. If you want a more compact lighter setup then consider the F4.

I own the f2.8mkII but have spent time with the mk1 also. I wouldn't write it off, it's still a great lens.
 

JKD

JKD

Associate
Joined
27 Jun 2004
Posts
1,416
Seconding the 70-200 f4. I just got it and worried exactly the same as you as to whether to get the f2.8. The f4 is pretty much perfect for me, with f4 I generally get the whole head in focus and throw out the background, I'm getting much sharper and pleasing images with this lens over my f2 135mm and 50mm f1.4.

Edit: This is also on FF by the way, on a crop sensor camera I'm not so sure that f4 would cut it.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Aug 2012
Posts
700
Seconding the 70-200 f4. I just got it and worried exactly the same as you as to whether to get the f2.8. The f4 is pretty much perfect for me, with f4 I generally get the whole head in focus and throw out the background, I'm getting much sharper and pleasing images with this lens over my f2 135mm and 50mm f1.4.

Edit: This is also on FF by the way, on a crop sensor camera I'm not so sure that f4 would cut it.

I'm using it on a 60d and I think it is brilliant but I am no pro
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615
They really aren't the same lens at all, they just happen to have the same focal length but their main uses are pretty different IMO.


The 2.8 is a fantastic portrait lens, perfect for events, weddings, studio etc. A head and should portrait at 200mm f/2.8 is sublime. The 2.8 will give better subject isolation and can make the difference between shooting at ISO 6400 or 12800. It is also great for sports, especially indoor. It also take the extenders very well still leaving you with a Fast aperture.

The 70-200mm can also be used for portraits of course but if you wanted a dedicated portrait/event lens then the 2.8 just works better. Note, even with the 2.8 you are going to frequently stop down to f/4.0 or f/5.6 to get sufficient DoF, the 2.8 is there just to help you if you get a couple informs of a horrid noisy background or to draw attention to specific features, so most of the time the f/4.0 is going to work just as well but it is those times where you really needed the extra stop where you appreciate you have the option.

The f/4.0 is a great general purpose walk about lens, perfect for landscapes, outdoors posts when close enough. The weight saving is significant for longer hikes DoF.

Ideally I would have both lenses. I compromise with the f/2.8 and the 70-300mm f/5.6.


You can always start with the f/4.0 and if you start wishing you had an f/2.8 upgrade, or look at the tamron or sigma options.
 
Associate
Joined
5 Feb 2008
Posts
2,207
If you can afford it, go with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.

It has a deservedly good reputation. Sure it's heavier than most 70-200mm, but it is f/2.8 and the optics are superb.

£1499 and one of those listed retailers has a 2 year guarantee built in and excellent customer service (sounds like a mans name to give you a clue!!).

Don't compromise, don't get the Sigma or Tamron, you'll only regret not going for the best :)
 
Associate
Joined
26 Mar 2007
Posts
1,604
I had the Canon 70-300 IS USM (non L) and opted for the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC for my 6D. No regrets on choosing it over the Canon equivalent as you get 95% of that lens for half the price. Easily my most used lens and ties with my 100mm 2.8L as my favourite glass.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
28 Feb 2009
Posts
758
Thanks for all the input :) I decided I wanted a 2.8 as I do occasionally do some low light stuff.. I've done the sensible thing and found somewhere I can go and play with both the lenses for a bit and hopefully will be bringing one home ;)

I shall report back later :p
 
Back
Top Bottom