Advice on new Canon lens

[richardnadeau]

I need some advice.

I'm starting to think about my next lens. The equipment doesn't make the photographer, but L-glass is the standard for most professional photographers for good reason.

I would like to have a workhorse portrait and performance photography lens. My current lens is the Canon 75-300mm IS and I shoot with the 20D. The standard portrait L-glass lens has been the Canon 70-200 mm f2.8 IS. I've rented it for two days and I'm testing it by photographing the play (Chicago) at my wife's school. I have to photograph from the auditorium and no flash is permitted. The lens is heavy, it's expensive ($2300), but it shoots quite fast at f2.8, though I have to be careful in focussing with such a low depth of field. There is a difference between my previous images and the ones I'm getting now.

Here's my dilemma.

Canon has a new 70-200 mm f4 IS lens. It's half the price, the reviews say that the optical quality is equivalent to the f2.8, it's well built and it's extraordinarily light. It also has Canon's new stabilizing technology that stabilizes the lens up to 4 stops. I can't find a place that will rent the lens. It's too recent. Question is: "Will I miss that one stop difference" ? The forums are full of people who say that they're selling their f2.8 lens for this one because it's easy to hold and to travel with. I don't know if I should believe them.

Finances will obvious play a role in which one I eventually buy, but I would appreciate your input.

Thanks,

[DarkPenguin]

Only you know the answer to this.  What are your indoor exposures like?  If you knock a stop off the top are you down to unacceptable shutter speeds?  (Remember IS doesn't save you from subject motion.)

[BlasR]

I don't know where you getting the price $2300.00 for the 70-200
but I got the lens 2 years ago, and I pay $1600.00 New US guarranty, so look around for better price.

BlasR

[Maddog]

I had the same problem trying to choose.
See my post below. I was in Japan and they had a 2.8 on display. It didn't take long holding it to soon realize It was HEAVEY. I ended up getting the 4.0 and love it. I posted a 2 pics I took at the hockey game I was half way up the stands on the opposite side when I took those. It was my first pics with the lens and I don't think they are that bad, for a amateur. They where shot at 1600 and I had at times 2000 speed at the 4.0.
 I got it from  The Image World http://www.theimagingworld.com/Lenses/Canon/CAN70200L4IS.htm

They have it for 999 dollars US lens with warranty. I was kinds worried at first I payed with paypal.
Great Deal and lens
good luck Maddog

[spotmeter]

I have used the Canon 70-200 f4 (non IS) for five years and it is a very sharp lens. The L primes in its range are sharper, but not by much.

You can get around subject movement by panning with the subject (such as in hockey, soccer, football, etc), or you can increase the ASA and remove the noise with a Photoshop Plug in.

I avoid camera shake with mine by putting the camera on a tripod with a ball head, which allows me to point the camera anywhere I want. I keep the shutter pressed halfway down when I am following someone and set the shutter for multiple exposures.  Panning blurs the background and makes the subject stand out more.  I have experimented with very slow shutter speeds, and like the effect.

[E.J. Peiker]

I have both and use them very differently.  The f/4 is a great lens for outdoors as I hike many miles with many pounds of equipment regularly.  The outstanding image quality and light weight are perfect.  For indoor stuff I prefer the f/2.8 because it is brighter and easier to focus critically with.  Additionally, since you mention portraiture, the f/2.8 shallower DOF compared to f/4 is significant which can be a major benefit in portrait type situations.  Alternately, you could get the 70-200 f/4 and get an 85 f/1.8 and have a better portrait lens yet in the 85 while not spending more than for the 70-200 f/2.8 alone.

[Yakim Peled]

>> I would like to have a workhorse portrait and performance photography lens.

For portraits an f/2.8 lens will be better as it provides shallower DoF.

>> I have to photograph from the auditorium and no flash is permitted.

Again the f/2.8 has a clear advantage here.

>> The lens is heavy, it's expensive ($2300),

Check again. It's 1600$ - 1700$.

>> There is a difference between my previous images and the ones I'm getting now.

Not surprising.....

>> Question is: "Will I miss that one stop difference" ?

For your intended use (i.e. portraits and sports) the answer is "Probably yes".

>> The forums are full of people who say that they're selling their f2.8 lens for this one because it's easy to hold and to travel with. I don't know if I should believe them.

No reason not to but not necessarily you and them has the same needs. A Ford pick-up truck and a two-seater Mazda Miata may cost the same and can both be qualified as "cars" but they serve very different purposes.

[giles]

>> The forums are full of people who say that they're selling their f2.8 lens for this one because it's easy to hold and to travel with. I don't know if I should believe them.

No reason not to but not necessarily you and them has the same needs. A Ford pick-up truck and a two-seater Mazda Miata may cost the same and can both be qualified as "cars" but they serve very different purposes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96926\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a Mazda MX-5 (Miata) and the 70-200/f2.8.  Yeah, the 70-200 and the car weigh about the same, but I'm not even tempted to sell either: the f/2.8 gives another stop of light, and with dim APS-C viewfinders (alright: I use my 70-200 on a 400D ...) and middle aged eyesight, the extra stop is nice.  Plus the 70-200/f2.8 has 77mm filters, which if you already have them is one less expense, and with the 1.4x teleconverter is at f/4 not f/5.6.

My thoughts might be different if I did much more hiking and/or shot much more handheld.  But in the meantime I tell myself that carrying the extra weight is good for me, and if the lens is too heavy I need to take more weight off my waistline before changing equipment.

Giles