need advice: Canon 70-200 vs other choices

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by qveda, Jun 8, 2010.

  1. qveda macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    #1
    I have a 5DmkII with a 24-105L. mostly shoot outdoors , and mostly not fast moving objects. I have a demanding day job , but find things to shoot to/from work, and weekends.

    I was planning to get a 70-200 f2.8 , works well with TC ( not sure I can afford IS version) But having second thoughts.

    a 100-400 f4.5-5.6 is slower, pretty bulky, but has great range and no overlap with the 24-105. a bit concerned with the speed.

    another interesting possibility is a 180 f3.5 L macro. I've read reviews, relatively slow AF , but very sharp, and outstanding macro. could even work with a 1.4 TC But could it be a practical lens for landscape and general purpose. not able to rent this lens locally, otherwise I'd try it.

    I'd love to hear from folks have real world experience with these lenses.
     
  2. Kronie macrumors 6502a

    Kronie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
  3. turugara macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #3
    The F4L is is amazing in terms of quality, especially once you consider its cost. I own the 70-200mm IS and I can tell you, it is by far one of my favorite lenses to use. While it may not be as perfectly sharp as the primes, it allows me to get the shots I want when I need them.

    I'd seriously consider the F4L over the F2.8L if I had a tight budget. Look into it.
     
  4. qveda thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    #4
    well... I did consider that one. But when only looking at 70-200, I had decided to go for the f2.8, even if I couldn't get IS, since I felt that's the one I'd want in the long run. Both are great. so, OK, I'll put that one back on the list ;-)

    any 70-200 is a good and reasonable choice. but since I've got 24-105 covered, I might apply the $$ to longer reach or macro. I guess biggest the 'unknown' for me is how practical the 180 f3.5 L might be.

    I appreciate this is one of those posts that perhaps rehashes opinions with no real clear outcome. but maybe someone who has used these , and especially the 180 macro , will chime in.
     
  5. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #5
    Splurge

    Splurge for the f/2.8, or the f/2.8IS.

    I have a f/4, and I have been wanting to upgrade every time I use it. I guess I do alot of low-light music shooting, which a 2.8 zoom is still not even that good for, but I really can NOT use the 70-200 f/4L inside at all. f/4 just is not enough.

    Bang for the buck, its stellar. But I would consider looking for a used f/2.8. I need to upgrade before next month, for an outdoors trip, and am in the same boat as you kind of. I dont know if I want to get either:
    -70-200 f/2.8
    -70-200 f/2.8IS (SOOO EXPENSIVE!)
    -300 f/4LIS (for some better reach with sports, wildlife, and location portrait work)
    -135 f/2L (Just to get an AWESOME lens for low light and portraits)
    -Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. (This seems to be a stellar deal also. Check out this link to see the the f/2.8L compared to the tamron f/2.8 at 100mm, f/2.8.)

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
     
  6. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #6
    overlapping FL's isn't a bad thing. it means you switch lenses less.

    what's so attractive about the 70-200/2.8 to you? you don't need the speed or the bulk. unless it has a certain quality that you really want, I would get the f/4 IS, or 100-400 if you need/want the reach. speed isn't an issue when you're taking pictures of stationary objects during the day.

    the 180 macro is a macro lens first and foremost. it doesn't work as well as a multi-purpose lens as, say, 100mm macros. size and slow focusing are the main drawbacks. they're also harder to sell, especially since the 100L came out.
     
  7. Kronie macrumors 6502a

    Kronie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #7
    I guess it would help us to know what you shoot.

    I used to own the 180L and while its a great lens its sort of a specialty macro lens. Its focal length is great for shooting insects but its too long for portraits and too long for everyday flower/product photography. Plus no IS.

    If your looking for a 70-200 then start with an F4. I own the f4 L IS and its perfect on my 5d2. The 2.8 IS is a MONSTER its huge and weighs a ton. I have owned both versions.

    I have owned the regular 2.8 but you know what? NO IS. your going to wish you had it.

    I also own the 100-400 and its another specialty lens. recommended if you need the FL.

    You said you "mostly shoot outdoors , and mostly not fast moving objects" then why do you need a 2.8 lens?

    If you said I shoot events in bad lighting or I shoot portraits then maybe 2.8 but if your always going to stop down to F4 or F8 then whats the point?
     
  8. qveda thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    #8
    I think the main reason I'm a little reluctant to go for the 70-200 f4 is that there is a f2.8 option(s) in this FL. and as a relatively small bonus, the f2.8 has the same filter size as my 24-105L (77mm).
     
  9. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #9
    just because there is a faster version doesn't mean that's always the best option. you pay with the higher cost and larger size, and often the faster lenses lose out to the slower ones when it comes to peak resolution.

    all L zooms except the 16-35 II have 77mm filters.
     
  10. Flash SWT macrumors 6502

    Flash SWT

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #10
  11. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #11
  12. qveda thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    #12
    Thanks to everyone for your responses. helpful inputs. sounds like the 180macro may be too limiting for my purposes right now. I'm leaning towards the 70-200 2.8 with IS , if I can find a good deal on a used one in VG to Exc condition
     
  13. qveda thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    #13
    Of the lenses I've been considering, seems like the 70-200 f2.8 with ext. tube for occasional macro and and an extender for extra reach, would give me very good versatility.

    IS would definitely be a plus, but without IS , I could afford the accessories (ext tube and TC) .
     
  14. qveda thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    #14
  15. oblomow macrumors 68020

    oblomow

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #15
    Have you considered the other Canon 'bargain'? The 200mm 2.8? It gets good reviews at Fred Miranda and here
     
  16. qveda thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    #16
    Yes, I did. then got distracted by the 180 macro ;-). the 200L is still very interesting. although many feel its not highly useful focal length.
     
  17. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #17
    I use the 200 quite often. In my view it easily is the best bang for the money lens out there. It should also be a lot better than a zoom for close-ups, but it's not a macro lens. Mine is sharp as a tack.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    I have too many to post in here, including some close-ups of flowers :)
     
  18. qveda thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    #18
    Thanks for posting the photos, AlaskaMoose. Hard to argue with image quality !
    I'm curious. If your only other lens was a 24-105 f4 L, would you still choose the 200 as your second lens?

    I often edit my shots from the 24-105 with some reframing/cropping/re-composing. Many times, I end up with the equivalent of a cropped image as though it had been taken with a slightly longer lens, ~ 135. (no problem with the 5D-mkII)

    Since I get a lot of use (lately) from the 24-105, it could be that the 200 prime might be all I need when I want that extra reach. And the 200 probably works great with an extender, and maybe ext.tubes for occasional macro (I don't think the 500D close up lens is available in 72mm ).
     
  19. funkboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Location:
    elsewhere
    #19
    The 180 f/3.5L macro has lethargically slow autofocus, probably as a result of being a fairly old macro lens.

    Personally I find the f/2.8 L zooms to be too heavy, and with a camera like the 5DII producing good images at ISO6400 the weight & bulk of the extra stop is just not worth it (not to mention the price).

    I'd go for the fantastic 70-200 f/4L IS and a 1.4x teleconverter.
     
  20. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #20
    I just like primes. For example, I have the EF 100mm Macro USM (no IS), and use this lens for macro photography, landscapes from a distance, and would not hesitate to use it for portraits. All I would do is to move back (zoom out with my legs) as needed.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    The next lens I use is the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II (a little over $700.00), and the one I used for the photos above this post, plus these two below (with a 12mm Kenko tube).
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Zooms are best when you don't want to move back and forth from the subject, but I prefer the slight sharpness of primes, and don't mind "zooming in/out with my legs." I don't understand why some photographers feel that a macro lens limits one's photography to macros, because that's not the case. Once can use any macro or prime lens for anything one wants. for example, I could use my 100mm and even the 200mm prime for portraits if I wanted. Yes, I may not be able to use it indoors, but outdoors I can move away from the subject as needed.

    Lenses I use:
    -Tokina 12-24mm f/4 for wide landscapes
    -Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (for pictures of people indoors, pets, etc.)
    -EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
    -EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II
    -EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

    The EF 200mm f/2.8 (above) is a little jewel, and fast-focusing. In a couple of years I plan to buy a 5DII for landscapes along a 17-40mm L, and still can use the 100, 200, and 400 lenses above. The 200 prime should be perfect for the 5DII.
     
  21. qveda thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    #21
    Thanks to everyone who responded to my post and provided such great advice. Today, I happened across a great deal on a 70-200 f2.8 (non IS), and decided to go for it. I'll have a little extra $ to get a telecoverter, and maybe even a used 100 macro.

    :)
     
  22. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #22
    Can't go wrong with that lens ;)

    I plan to buy the 70-200 f/4 without IS, since there is plenty of daylight in Alaska, and I plan to use it for sled-dog races only.
     
  23. Kronie macrumors 6502a

    Kronie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #23
    Only for a few months!
     
  24. oblomow macrumors 68020

    oblomow

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #24
    I've been north of the arctic circle in the winter, and there's still plenty of daylight. Only december/january are a bit challenging.
     
  25. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #25
    Yes, and no. For example, it's around March-April when most sled-dog races are taking place in the interior. As you can see in the photos above, there was plenty of sunlight when I took the photos. The same can be said for The Yukon Quest and other races.
    February around -35 degrees:
    [​IMG]

    Yes, around December the sunlight is limited, but by then it's so cold outside that I usually don't stay out long :)
     

Share This Page