Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L or 24-70mm f/2.8

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

I went through the exact same thing. I ended up with the 70-200 2.8 IS for two reasons: aperture/faster and IS because it's a heavy ass lens (seriously after holding it the 24-70mm doesn't seem so bad). To best honest I got that lens because I was hoping to get into wedding photography (just for fun of course) and it seems like it would be a good combo along with the 24-70mm.

For concerts, if you can get close to the stage I would go with a prime (50mm or 85mm). Obviously you won't have the zoom ability but the speed is more important for those events. Of course if your camera has good performance at high ISO then 2.8 lenses will do just fine. I shot a few concerts before and 2.8 at 1600 was adequate for me with decent lighting. However, I sometimes wished I had a faster lens (or high ISO cus my last camera only went up to 1600-XSi).

yeah its a tough choice. I don't want the IS version but I'd probably like the 2.8 if I go for the 70-200. If the f4 is good enough and I don't consider getting that lens for indoor use, I'd probably try for the f4 plus the 50mm 1.2L. I've used my 50mm 1.8 at shows and the fast speed is great, I'd love to upgrade to an even faster one but yes, the non zoom factor hurts when everything is spur of the moment shots that I might be TOO close to capture (like the drummer starts going nuts or the bassist comes over to jam with the lead guitarist in a solo. I just need a bit of flexibility in that aspect which is why I got the 16-35mm 2.8L instead of the 24-70mm 2.8L for a walk around lens (wish there was like a 35-70mm 1.8 or something like that). I don't get to zoom in as much but I also never get stuck too close to capture something happening either, you can always crop right?

I mean if I go for the 70-200 2.8 then I could always just upgrade my 50mm to the 1.4 but like everyone says its not that big of an upgrade.

So what does everyone think?

70-200mm 2.8 L (non IS) and the 50mm 1.4 = about $1600 total (leaves me $400 for a new bag and nice tripod.
or
70-200mm f4 L (non IS) and 50mm 1.2L = about $2000 total unless I can find some good lightly used deals

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

I mean if I go for the 70-200 2.8 then I could always just upgrade my 50mm to the 1.4 but like everyone says its not that big of an upgrade.

So what does everyone think?

70-200mm 2.8 L (non IS) and the 50mm 1.4 = about $1600 total (leaves me $400 for a new bag and nice tripod.
or
70-200mm f4 L (non IS) and 50mm 1.2L = about $2000 total unless I can find some good lightly used deals

Perhaps you should start another thread cus the OP is gonna kick ur ass for taking over his thread.

On a serious note, I don't know if you really need the 50mm 1.2L. I mean I don't know of too many people with it and IMO you probably won't need anything more than 1.8/1.4. I don't know though- you have to try everything out and pick the lenses that are right for your style.

As for the 70-200mm, the F/4.0 is the sharpest of the bunch but the difference is only noticeable if you pixel peep. So if you need/want to use the 70-200mm 2.8 for concerts, I would recommend going with the IS version. Unless you will always have a monopod/tripod on you, IS is helpful in such situations (unless you're able to use a fast enough shutter speed). Of course it's more expensive but you should always have it and don't need it than the other way around. Besides, you could always sell it and buy a 2.8 non-IS later.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

Perhaps you should start another thread cus the OP is gonna kick ur ass for taking over his thread.

On a serious note, I don't know if you really need the 50mm 1.2L. I mean I don't know of too many people with it and IMO you probably won't need anything more than 1.8/1.4. I don't know though- you have to try everything out and pick the lenses that are right for your style.

As for the 70-200mm, the F/4.0 is the sharpest of the bunch but the difference is only noticeable if you pixel peep. So if you need/want to use the 70-200mm 2.8 for concerts, I would recommend going with the IS version. Unless you will always have a monopod/tripod on you, IS is helpful in such situations (unless you're able to use a fast enough shutter speed). Of course it's more expensive but you should always have it and don't need it than the other way around. Besides, you could always sell it and buy a 2.8 non-IS later.

hahaha, I'm sure he won't care and if he does... sorry.

See the thing with the IS is that in concerts, you don't want a lot of motion, you want to stop it so shooting at 1/40, even 1/30 with IS is gonna still make them look weird. I try to shoot at 1/125 if possible or minimum 1/60-1/80. I just don't think the IS is necessary so I'd rather have the 2.8 to be able to shoot at 1/60 or above than to shoot at 1/30 with the F4 but have IS on.

With the 50mm 1.2L, the 50mm prime is like my favorite lens and I have the very unreliable 1.8 version. I could just get the 1.4 but I figure I'd actually really like to use it often so maybe I should invest in the 1.2L since it'll be sharper and the bokeh on it will be sick.
you think its a waste of the $1100 difference from the 1.4?

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

...

So what does everyone think?

70-200mm 2.8 L (non IS) and the 50mm 1.4 = about $1600 total (leaves me $400 for a new bag and nice tripod.
or
70-200mm f4 L (non IS) and 50mm 1.2L = about $2000 total unless I can find some good lightly used deals

I'm worried about the non-IS on your 70-200mm, particularly since you do concerts. You can use them very well for audience perspective shots of the bands. The IS is good for 2 f-stops. Also, even outdoors, when you get to the long end of that zoom, you'll really appreciate the IS. This is a slightly different league, but my 400 f/5.6 L non-IS was only available without IS, but I almost bought a 100-400 zoom instead to get the IS. Even on a monopod, it's hard to keep the center focus-dot centered on the subject.

Having said that, I'd go for the 70-200 f3 L IS with the 50mm 1.4. If the 1.4 is not an L, then I'm worried because it seems like it may end up being your money-lens on stage. If that's true, I take it all back and say you should get the 1.2L before anything else and save to by the 70-200 f4L IS later.

BTW, stage lighting is usually plenty for an f4 in a reasonably fast camera. The trouble is you'll have to make big color balance changes in processing.

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

...
With the 50mm 1.2L, the 50mm prime is like my favorite lens and I have the very unreliable 1.8 version. I could just get the 1.4 but I figure I'd actually really like to use it often so maybe I should invest in the 1.2L since it'll be sharper and the bokeh on it will be sick.
you think its a waste of the $1100 difference from the 1.4?

I think you'll see a BIG difference in shooting concerts. With your stage access you'll be able to frame by managing your distance from the subjects. This L lens will not only be more reliable, but it'll be sharper, which is what really counts.

Dig up all the lens reviews and tests that you can find, because even the L-series do vary from model to model. One may be stunningly sharp and the other L only very good. I'm not in the market for this range, so I don't have a clear opinion, other than Ls are worth saving for. You never know, but some of the non-Canon lenses are particularly sharp, like the Ziess wide angle, so don't limit your search to Canon. Limit it to very high quality glass.

Dave

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I'm worried about the non-IS on your 70-200mm, particularly since you do concerts. You can use them very well for audience perspective shots of the bands. The IS is good for 2 f-stops. Also, even outdoors, when you get to the long end of that zoom, you'll really appreciate the IS. This is a slightly different league, but my 400 f/5.6 L non-IS was only available without IS, but I almost bought a 100-400 zoom instead to get the IS. Even on a monopod, it's hard to keep the center focus-dot centered on the subject.

Having said that, I'd go for the 70-200 f3 L IS with the 50mm 1.4. If the 1.4 is not an L, then I'm worried because it seems like it may end up being your money-lens on stage. If that's true, I take it all back and say you should get the 1.2L before anything else and save to by the 70-200 f4L IS later.

BTW, stage lighting is usually plenty for an f4 in a reasonably fast camera. The trouble is you'll have to make big color balance changes in processing.

Dave

thats a really good point about the long end of the 70-200mm. I rarely use a tripod and don't even own a monopod. I like using long glass at baseball games and would probably use the lens in the 70-100mm range more for candid portraits from like 15 ft away.

Also, bigger show stage lighting is usually f4 capable but a lot of times I'm shooting in smaller clubs with not as good of lighting so 2.8 is where I'm at most of the time if not lower

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I think you'll see a BIG difference in shooting concerts. With your stage access you'll be able to frame by managing your distance from the subjects. This L lens will not only be more reliable, but it'll be sharper, which is what really counts.

Dig up all the lens reviews and tests that you can find, because even the L-series do vary from model to model. One may be stunningly sharp and the other L only very good. I'm not in the market for this range, so I don't have a clear opinion, other than Ls are worth saving for. You never know, but some of the non-Canon lenses are particularly sharp, like the Ziess wide angle, so don't limit your search to Canon. Limit it to very high quality glass.

Dave

thanks

[PNF]

I'm sorry, you guys'd be kidding yourself if you can hold your 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) steady even just at 1/60 speed without any sort of support (mono/tri pod or something). that lens together with a body will weigh more than 4-5 lbs, and if you add an external flash, you're looking at 5 lbs of hand held easy. I wont say that I work out a lot, but thats a big piece to hold steady to take shots. You need the IS for either version, unless most of the shooting you're doing will be outdoors.

Having the IS doesnt give you 1 more stop or allow you to really to shoot at 1 stop lower shutter speed IMO. It just ensures that even at 1/60 handheld, 4 out of 5 photos (assuming you have steady hands), will come out decent.

For an indoor shot, (i.e. concerts), you need 70-200 f2.8 IS WITH a monopod to really maximize your shoot IMO. (sure, usually stage lightings are enough, but we all know, the color balance usually are whack and you'd really want to shoot at highest speed possible)

There are too many variables.

Udub, go for your option 2!! hah, 50mm 1.2L is awesome! But, if I may, I'd rather have this combo though.

70-200mm f4 IS, 35mm f1.4L.

50mm f1.4 is actually a very well-built glass and its performance is amazing for its price. I dont own one, but I borrow it from my friends from time to time. I have never tried the 50mm f1.2.. but because I also have a crop body, I find 50mm f1.2 is too far out for me for an everyday use.

I'm waiting on the 35mm f1.4 MK2 that is supposedly coming out later this year. I just hope that the 35mm f1.4 will stay under $1500 after they jack up the price.....(or just go for 35mm f1.4 MK1 for $1200?)

[PNF]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

It's true that the 24-70mm has no IS but the faster aperture can help freeze motion (IS won't). To be honest in low light conditions even the 2.8 is inadequate a lot of times (especially with fairly fast subjects). I debated between that 24-70 and the 24-105 (reach & IS) and went with the former because I don't really care for IS and the 2.8 aperture is more important to me than the extra reach. With that being said, if you have a good camera that performs well at 3200 ISO, the f/4.0 is fine. I just really like the 2.8 for the bokeh.

oh no, I am not arguing against having the extra stop helps! I know that and I agree with you 100%.

I am just saying, even at f2.8, like you said, in an in-door situation, even at say ISO 1200, you'll probably still need to shoot at 1/60 to get some clear pictures (I'm assuming no external flash used).

I'm just saying, IS really helps a lot in low-lit environment, even tho at 1 fewer stop in the aperture. Obviously, cant argue against the 24-70, since that was one of the lens that I was considering before my 17-55, but oh well, until I go FF, 17-55 will do.

For zoom lens everyday combo, I personally love my set up of 17-55mm f2.8 and 70-200 f4 IS..

All the rest, only prime glasses do the justice IMO.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by PNF

I'm sorry, you guys'd be kidding yourself if you can hold your 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) steady even just at 1/60 speed without any sort of support (mono/tri pod or something). that lens together with a body will weigh more than 4-5 lbs, and if you add an external flash, you're looking at 5 lbs of hand held easy. I wont say that I work out a lot, but thats a big piece to hold steady to take shots. You need the IS for either version, unless most of the shooting you're doing will be outdoors.

Having the IS doesnt give you 1 more stop or allow you to really to shoot at 1 stop lower shutter speed IMO. It just ensures that even at 1/60 handheld, 4 out of 5 photos (assuming you have steady hands), will come out decent.

For an indoor shot, (i.e. concerts), you need 70-200 f2.8 IS WITH a monopod to really maximize your shoot IMO. (sure, usually stage lightings are enough, but we all know, the color balance usually are whack and you'd really want to shoot at highest speed possible)

There are too many variables.

Udub, go for your option 2!! hah, 50mm 1.2L is awesome! But, if I may, I'd rather have this combo though.

70-200mm f4 IS, 35mm f1.4L.

50mm f1.4 is actually a very well-built glass and its performance is amazing for its price. I dont own one, but I borrow it from my friends from time to time. I have never tried the 50mm f1.2.. but because I also have a crop body, I find 50mm f1.2 is too far out for me for an everyday use.

I'm waiting on the 35mm f1.4 MK2 that is supposedly coming out later this year. I just hope that the 35mm f1.4 will stay under $1500 after they jack up the price.....(or just go for 35mm f1.4 MK1 for $1200?)

Good points!

I think I'm gonna look into a 50mm 1.4 and then a 70-200mm 2.8 IS (probably used though)

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by PNF

...
For zoom lens everyday combo, I personally love my set up of 17-55mm f2.8 and 70-200 f4 IS.. .

17-55 f2.8 slam dunks any 70-200 as a walkabout lens, particularly on a crop-sensor camera. The 70-200 is full tele and just won't work on most scenics, groups shots, or documentary type shooting. (It's good for head shots and tele). You need a walk around first, then you can think of the 70-200 or a prime lens if you have a particular need (like the onstage photography discussed earlier). For a crop-sensor, I'd really look hard at 35mm rather than 50mm, unless you really need a short portrait-style lens. 35mm on a crop-sensor is closer to what most consider a "normal" lens.

Dave

[PNF]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

So what does everyone think?

70-200mm 2.8 L (non IS) and the 50mm 1.4 = about $1600 total (leaves me $400 for a new bag and nice tripod.
or
70-200mm f4 L (non IS) and 50mm 1.2L = about $2000 total unless I can find some good lightly used deals

Whats is your purpose for the bag?

Everyday carry, travel carry?

If for everyday carry, I use a lot of these inserts and buy some foams from B&H as well.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ed_Insert.html

I just use any stylish standard size messenger bag and put in the inserts! They work wonders!

I have like 5 or 6 Diesel bags for my camera.. haha

OR this one, if you have bigger travel bags.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ra_Insert.html

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by dcstep

17-55 f2.8 slam dunks any 70-200 as a walkabout lens, particularly on a crop-sensor camera. The 70-200 is full tele and just won't work on most scenics, groups shots, or documentary type shooting. (It's good for head shots and tele). You need a walk around first, then you can think of the 70-200 or a prime lens if you have a particular need (like the onstage photography discussed earlier). For a crop-sensor, I'd really look hard at 35mm rather than 50mm, unless you really need a short portrait-style lens. 35mm on a crop-sensor is closer to what most consider a "normal" lens.

Dave

that is true, I find myself using my 16-35mm @ the full 35mm most of the time for walkaround shots on m 40D

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by PNF

I'm sorry, you guys'd be kidding yourself if you can hold your 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) steady even just at 1/60 speed without any sort of support (mono/tri pod or something). that lens together with a body will weigh more than 4-5 lbs, and if you add an external flash, you're looking at 5 lbs of hand held easy. I wont say that I work out a lot, but thats a big piece to hold steady to take shots. You need the IS for either version, unless most of the shooting you're doing will be outdoors. ...

I agree, to a degree, but it'll depend on which end of the zoom that you're working. At 70mm you can get results with only a little softness, but you have to think and concentrate as if you're shooting at 200mm. This is why I like the 70-200 f4 L IS so much. The lightness and IS offset the 2-stops of speed lost in many (most?) situations.

Without IS, you'll surely want a good monopod. (Love my CF Manfrotto). You may look a little geeky, but it sure sharpens things up.

Dave

[PNF]

Originally Posted by dcstep

17-55 f2.8 slam dunks any 70-200 as a walkabout lens, particularly on a crop-sensor camera. The 70-200 is full tele and just won't work on most scenics, groups shots, or documentary type shooting. (It's good for head shots and tele). You need a walk around first, then you can think of the 70-200 or a prime lens if you have a particular need (like the onstage photography discussed earlier). For a crop-sensor, I'd really look hard at 35mm rather than 50mm, unless you really need a short portrait-style lens. 35mm on a crop-sensor is closer to what most consider a "normal" lens.

Dave

+1 Exactly!

(hence my previous post about looking at 35mm f1.4, instead of 50mm, which I usually just borrow my friend's 50 f1.4 anyway)

Oh, Udub, I just want to add that, the insert I recommend, I can put and I carry these daily for my gear.

This insert will fit my

50D with 17-55mm f2.8 lens
70-200mm f4 IS
580EXII
a CPL.

I highly recommend.

Who says camera bags have to be dull-looking..

[PNF]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I agree, to a degree, but it'll depend on which end of the zoom that you're working. At 70mm you can get results with only a little softness, but you have to think and concentrate as if you're shooting at 200mm. This is why I like the 70-200 f4 L IS so much. The lightness and IS offset the 2-stops of speed lost in many (most?) situations.

Without IS, you'll surely want a good monopod. (Love my CF Manfrotto). You may look a little geeky, but it sure sharpens things up.

Dave

hey Dave, I think we're on the same side.. I'm the one who is saying 70-200mm f4 IS is a good enough/sharp enough lens for everyday use. (not as a walk-around, but as a everyday use lens) Walk-around, you need something like 24-70, or 24-105 or 17-55 etc..

I agree that the IS really makes a difference in low-lit situation, almost enough to offset the 1 extra stop. Also, for me, I could have gotten the f2.8 IS, but it is just the weight of f2.8 and there is no way in hell I'm gonna take that out on my leisure/travel trips.. just way too heavy.

(PS. 70-200 f4 is almost exactly half the weight of f2.8 IS!! 1.7lb vs 3.2lb !!!)



I am pro-IS myself, but lets face it. some of the best lens usually dont have IS...

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by PNF

...

I am pro-IS myself, but lets face it. some of the best lens usually dont have IS...

I was really disappointed that there wasn't an IS version of the 400mm f5.6L available. The cost difference isn't usually large to get IS, when it's available. They're slowly filling in the gaps, but there are still very significant gaps.

The 100-400 L has IS and doesn't weigh a bunch more, but I went for the 400mm 5.6 because of its IQ reputation vs. the variability reported in the 100-400.

Dave

[Vudoo4u2]

how about the canon 10-400 F 1.2 IS L?

I hear it comes with a backstrap and a ground stabilizer fold out arm

[PNF]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I was really disappointed that there wasn't an IS version of the 400mm f5.6L available. The cost difference isn't usually large to get IS, when it's available. They're slowly filling in the gaps, but there are still very significant gaps.

The 100-400 L has IS and doesn't weigh a bunch more, but I went for the 400mm 5.6 because of its IQ reputation vs. the variability reported in the 100-400.

Dave

Whoa, you have the 400mm lens?

What kinda of photography do you usually do?

Unless I do some serious track/sporting event photos, I dont think I will ever need a glass like that.

Originally Posted by Vudoo4u2

how about the canon 10-400 F 1.2 IS L?

I hear it comes with a backstrap and a ground stabilizer fold out arm

If you make one, I'll buy one..

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by PNF

Whoa, you have the 400mm lens?

What kinda of photography do you usually do?

Unless I do some serious track/sporting event photos, I dont think I will ever need a glass like that.

Birds and wildlife. I'm just blocks from a wildlife refuge and minutes from the Rocky Mountains.

I'm really just getting started with the birds and just bought the 400mm. If I've taken between 1000 and 2000 images with it by year end, then I'll start budgeting for a 600 mm Big Bertha style lens. Those are urber expensive. Even a used Sigma is like 3-grand. I can afford it, but I don't want to spend money buying something that expensive and just have it sitting in the closet.

Dave

[UdubBadger]

hmmm maybe I will get the f4 IS then... just gonna suck when I know I coulda had the 2.8 IS and been even 2 stops lower for a better shot.

I just don't think I wanna fork over the coin for it... I'm not even worried about the weight.

[jon@karbonwerke]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

hmmm maybe I will get the f4 IS then... just gonna suck when I know I coulda had the 2.8 IS and been even 2 stops lower for a better shot.

I just don't think I wanna fork over the coin for it... I'm not even worried about the weight.

for a 70-200 i would definitely want IS...all the more so if getting the heavier 2.8 version. when shooting handheld all day with the 2.8IS, the weight does start getting to you eventually.

if i were to shoot on a crop body, i would definitely be using the 17-55 2.8IS as my main lens. i'm still waiting for canon to release a 20-70 2.8LII with IS