Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

70-200mm f/4L IS worth it?

djstarrock

djstarrock

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Nov 23, 2006
826
0
UK, Scotland, Glasgow
I'm wondering if I should get just buy the Canon 55-250mm IS or should I save up for 70-200mm f/4L IS? I can get the 70-200L for about £900-1000 and the 55-200 for about £160-180.

Off-topic:
Can you buy from B&H if your in UK?
 
Depends on you

djstarrock said:
I'm wondering if I should get just buy the Canon 55-250mm IS or should I save up for 70-200mm f/4L IS? I can get the 70-200L for about £900-1000 and the 55-200 for about £160-180.
Click to expand...

Is it worth it? Answer: it depends on how important £700 is to you.
If money is tight, the L lens isn't worth it no matter how great it is.

If you save up for the 70-200L, what will you use for a telephoto in the meantime? If the answer is "nothing," I'd suggest you buy the 55-250 now, and keep saving. Then when (if) you can get the 70-200L, sell the 55-250. This way, you'll be able to shoot that focal length right now, instead of waiting until you can afford the better lens.
 
If you have a need right now, then saving up is pointless as the need may have passed. If you are just looking to expand your lens collection etc then I would suggest saving up for the L lens is the way to go.

The price difference says alot, you will be able to do more with the 70-200 f4 and then once you save up enough you will be on here asking the next question.....

"I can buy the 70-200 f/4 IS now, but should I save up the extra for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS?"

:D
 
AlaskaMoose said:
I would save for the 70-200mm f/4L. The 70-200mm f/2.8 would be even better, but it costs quite a lot more than the f/4.
Take a look:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=278617
Click to expand...

Yes, the 70-200 mm f/2.8 and f/4 are both better, but the OP really should ask himself if he wants to deal with the increased size and weight of those lenses. The f/4 would be more bearable, but it's still extra size and weight. Also, isn't the Canon version the 55-250 mm with IS? That's the version I'd get. It would only cost you a bit more, it's supposed to be pretty sharp, and it has IS as well.
 
I love my f/4L lens. I didn't have enough money to get the 2.8 lens at the time so I picked this one up. Great lens. Not so great in real low light conditions but for out door shooting. I haven't used it in a studio yet thou. But I have a feeling it wouldn't be half bad there either!
 
Well after much consideration, my original target was a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, then after a lot of thinking and research, I reset my goal and it is now to own 70-200 f/4 IS, beside the obvious price difference, I realize that the being half the weight of a 2.8 means a lot. And the smaller size and lighter weight will make it comfortable for use over long period. Besides, it seems f/4 is SHARPER then f/2.8, last time I dont believe this but after going through, threads and threads I decided that the f/4 IS is the next lens for me. Well Im not saying the f/2.8 is bad either, but unless you are getting paid professionally for your work, den the f/4 is a worthy contender.

Some ppl owns both f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS, they use f/2.8 IS during paid low light events, other then that, f/4 all the way.
 
djstarrock said:
I found I can get 70-200mm f/4L IS for £700 used is this a good deal?
Click to expand...

Yes, cheapest I can find in the UK is £929. But that's in a store I wouldn't use. Check it's not an import as you may be liable for import duty and VAT on receipt of the goods.

Also it is worth considering the no IS version of the 70-200 f/4. I have it and it's superb (half the price of the IS version as well). As for the suggestion to get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. O.k it is great, but costs £1499 (and it's heavy).

I wouldn't totally discount the 55-250 though, it's not L glass, but I've not met anyone who doesn't like it.
 
get the 55-250 first. it's good and it'll give you an idea of what you want in your next lens, like if you need the 70-200 f/2.8 for the extra stop, or if the f/4 IS will be fine.
 
djstarrock said:
I'm wondering if I should get just buy the Canon 55-250mm IS or should I save up for 70-200mm f/4L IS? I can get the 70-200L for about £900-1000 and the 55-200 for about £160-180.

Off-topic:
Can you buy from B&H if your in UK?
Click to expand...

The 70-200 f/4L IS is the sharpest zoom Canon makes. It is tack sharp wide open and gets better from there. Its IQ is better than the non-IS, or either of the 2.8L zooms.

That said, it's a stop slower than the 2.8, so if you're shooting moving objects, f/4 might not be enough.

The f/4 non-IS is also a great lens; optically on par with the f/2.8L, but obviously slower. If you want the best IQ in a 70-200 zoom, go with the f/4L IS. If you need faster glass, get the f/2.8L non-IS.
 
The 70-200 f/4L IS is the sharpest zoom Canon makes. It is tack sharp wide open and gets better from there. Its IQ is better than the non-IS, or either of the 2.8L zooms.

That said, it's a stop slower than the 2.8, so if you're shooting moving objects, f/4 might not be enough.

The f/4 non-IS is also a great lens; optically on par with the f/2.8L, but obviously slower. If you want the best IQ in a 70-200 zoom, go with the f/4L IS. If you need faster glass, get the f/2.8L non-IS.
Click to expand...
yup, Edge basically nailed that one, all of his points is correct and yea f/4 is SHARPER then f/2.8, guess the f/2.8 replacement will be sharper?

Anyway, just to add a few things, it is worth it to get the the IS version cuz without IS, at 200mm, your shutter need to be at least 1/200 to shoot handheld!
 
the 70-200 f/4L IS is phenomenal. I wouldn't trade it for anything else. Seriously. It has incredible sharpness across the whole zoom and aperture range, the focus is pin point, the 4-stop IS is brilliant (reasonably sharp hand held shots at ISO100, f/4 and 1/50 @ 200mm?!?) and the weight and size is perfect.

It's half the weight of the f/2.8, and what do you lose, that extra stop? Meh... I'd rather have my back.
 
Just for interests sake:

Here's the f/4L IS vs. the f/4L non-IS @ f/4 (wide open for both), 70mm

http://the-digital-picture.com/Revi...04&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=104

and now the f/4L IS vs. the f/2.8L non-IS @ f/4 (2.8 stopped down to f/4), 70mm

http://the-digital-picture.com/Revi...CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Notice how stunningly sharp the f/4L IS is. The f/2.8L and f/4L non-IS lenses are what I would call "sharp" at f/4, but the f/4IS is in a different league. It's an awesome, awesome lens.
 
Kebabselector said:
Yes, cheapest I can find in the UK is £929. But that's in a store I wouldn't use. Check it's not an import as you may be liable for import duty and VAT on receipt of the goods.

Also it is worth considering the no IS version of the 70-200 f/4. I have it and it's superb (half the price of the IS version as well). As for the suggestion to get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. O.k it is great, but costs £1499 (and it's heavy).

I wouldn't totally discount the 55-250 though, it's not L glass, but I've not met anyone who doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

Well it's from America from a user on POTN.
 
wheelhot said:
Well after much consideration, my original target was a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, then after a lot of thinking and research, I reset my goal and it is now to own 70-200 f/4 IS, beside the obvious price difference, I realize that the being half the weight of a 2.8 means a lot. And the smaller size and lighter weight will make it comfortable for use over long period. Besides, it seems f/4 is SHARPER then f/2.8, last time I dont believe this but after going through, threads and threads I decided that the f/4 IS is the next lens for me. Well Im not saying the f/2.8 is bad either, but unless you are getting paid professionally for your work, den the f/4 is a worthy contender.

Some ppl owns both f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS, they use f/2.8 IS during paid low light events, other then that, f/4 all the way.
Click to expand...

The 70-200mm f/4L is an outstanding lens, but in f/2.8 it gathers more light, is bulkier, and costs twice as much. According to those who use both, the f/4L may produce not necessarily sharper images, but perhaps slightly better color rendition.

Between the two lenses talked about by the OP, the other isn't even close to the 70-200mm f/4L.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back