Replacing stolen Canon 70-200 2.8IS - have to make a choice...
BD
I recently had all my good (Canon) gear stolen in a break-in,
including a 70-200 f/2.8IS lens.
Replacement value of this puppy is just about $2000.
Specifically, (and I didn't know this at the time I bought it) the
lens is a little soft from 150mm to 200mm when the aperture is wide
open. Seems kind of silly for me to put $2000 into a lens when I know
I'm not going to get optimal results from it all through its range.
I am considering, then, the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, and also the 70-200 f/
4. The reason I am considering these is that they are a little over
half the cost of the 2.8IS, and that difference would allow me to get
another lens which I quite enjoyed when I owned it, the 70-300. It's a
non-L lens, but I always liked its sharpness. I sold that one a few
years ago.
From a practical standpoint, I have used the lens at 2.8 many times...
but have to wonder if the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is really
worth almost a thousand dollars.
Does anyone have direct experience with all these lenses? Again, I
wasn't aware when I bought the 2.8IS that it had softness issues at
its longer reach. Perhaps all zooms are susceptible to this, to a
degree.
So, considering the options of sacrificing a couple of stops but
retaining the IS, and sacrificing the IS and retaining the same
aperture, I'm not sure how I would make that choice.
I'll be using this lens with a 7D body, which is what I lost.
Comments appreciated!
BD
Ray Fischer
>Hi, all.
>
>I recently had all my good (Canon) gear stolen in a break-in,
>including a 70-200 f/2.8IS lens.
>
>Replacement value of this puppy is just about $2000.
Good luck with that. You'll get maybe $1600. Insurance companies do
not, as a rule, pay more for used goods than new. They're not in the
business of being generous.
>Specifically, (and I didn't know this at the time I bought it) the
>lens is a little soft from 150mm to 200mm when the aperture is wide
>open. Seems kind of silly for me to put $2000 into a lens when I know
>I'm not going to get optimal results from it all through its range.
If sharpness is your primary concern. But weight, size, zoom range are
all other important attributes.
>I am considering, then, the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, and also the 70-200 f/
>4. The reason I am considering these is that they are a little over
>half the cost of the 2.8IS, and that difference would allow me to get
>another lens which I quite enjoyed when I owned it, the 70-300. It's a
>non-L lens, but I always liked its sharpness. I sold that one a few
>years ago.
The 70-300mm is not sharper than the 70-200mm f4. And the f4 IS gets
you better low-light performance than the f2.8 non IS.
>From a practical standpoint, I have used the lens at 2.8 many times...
>but have to wonder if the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is really
>worth almost a thousand dollars.
It wasn't for me. The f2.8 is a big lens and I didn't want to carry
it everywhere I go. For those events where the extra stop is needed
I can rent the lens.
> Again, I
>wasn't aware when I bought the 2.8IS that it had softness issues at
>its longer reach. Perhaps all zooms are susceptible to this, to a
>degree.
It's all tradeoffs.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
BD
> The 70-300mm is not sharper than the 70-200mm f4. And the f4 IS gets
> you better low-light performance than the f2.8 non IS.
Thanks. That's pretty much the kind of feedback I was looking for. Low-
light performance is the primary factor for me.
Glen Bakers
Ray Fischer the Pretend Photographer Troll, you seemed to have missed this
all important requirement by the OP:
>Does anyone have direct experience with all these lenses?
Indeed, you even edited that out of what you quoted, just to be safe, eh?
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>BD <rober...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Again, I
>>>wasn't aware when I bought the 2.8IS that it had softness issues at
>>>its longer reach. Perhaps all zooms are susceptible to this, to a
>>>degree.
>>
>>It's all tradeoffs.
>
>Ray Fischer the Pretend Photographer Troll,
Glen Bakers, an asshole with nothing to contribute.
>>Does anyone have direct experience with all these lenses?
>
>Indeed, you even edited that out of what you quoted, just to be safe, eh?
I have used those lenses, asshole, as I have stated. I even own one of
them. Apparently you couldn't find anything intelligent to add so you
decided that you would be a moron instead.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
eatmorepies
"BD" <rober...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b774599d-627f-4cd1...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I have both the 70-200 f2.8L and the 70-200 f4 IS L. I no longer use the
f2.8 one. The f4 IS is very sharp (including wide open) and its low weight
and IS allow me to hand hold it at much lower shutter speeds than I can the
f2.8.
Conclusion 70-200 f4 IS L.
I don't know the 70-300mm. Is it f5.6 at 300mm? If so buy a x1.4 multiplier
to run the 200mm up to 280mm.
John
Robert Coe
: >Hi, all.
: >
: >I recently had all my good (Canon) gear stolen in a break-in,
: >including a 70-200 f/2.8IS lens.
: >
: >Replacement value of this puppy is just about $2000.
:
: Good luck with that. You'll get maybe $1600. Insurance companies do
: not, as a rule, pay more for used goods than new. They're not in the
: business of being generous.
:
: >Specifically, (and I didn't know this at the time I bought it) the
: >lens is a little soft from 150mm to 200mm when the aperture is wide
: >open. Seems kind of silly for me to put $2000 into a lens when I know
: >I'm not going to get optimal results from it all through its range.
:
: If sharpness is your primary concern. But weight, size, zoom range are
: all other important attributes.
:
: >I am considering, then, the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, and also the 70-200 f/
: >4. The reason I am considering these is that they are a little over
: >half the cost of the 2.8IS, and that difference would allow me to get
: >another lens which I quite enjoyed when I owned it, the 70-300. It's a
: >non-L lens, but I always liked its sharpness. I sold that one a few
: >years ago.
:
: The 70-300mm is not sharper than the 70-200mm f4. And the f4 IS gets
: you better low-light performance than the f2.8 non IS.
Now wait a minute. That may be true if everyting you photograph is motionless
and all you have to worry about is camera shake. I can assure you that it's
most definitely NOT true if you're taking pictures of children at play,
because you'll be using shutter speeds at which IS doesn't matter very much.
Bob
BD
> Now wait a minute. That may be true if everyting you photograph is motionless
> and all you have to worry about is camera shake. I can assure you that it's
> most definitely NOT true if you're taking pictures of children at play,
> because you'll be using shutter speeds at which IS doesn't matter very much.
>
> Bob
But let's assume that I am moving from a 30D to a 7D - could not the
increased maximum useable ISO compensate for that to some degree?
We're down a stop from 2.8 to 4.0, but if I'm getting similar results
at ISO 800 with the 7D to what I got at ISO 400 on the 30D, doesn't
that compensate a bit for the smaller aperture?
To rephrase: I wonder if anyone's quantified the better s/n ratio at
higher ISOs on the 7D, against the loss of light introduced by the
reduced aperture of 2.8 to 4.0?
Kind of muddies things up a bit when multiple variables are changed at
the same time... ;)
Ray Fischer
Robert Coe
:
: > Now wait a minute. That may be true if everyting you photograph is motionless
: > and all you have to worry about is camera shake. I can assure you that it's
: > most definitely NOT true if you're taking pictures of children at play,
: > because you'll be using shutter speeds at which IS doesn't matter very much.
: >
: > Bob
:
: But let's assume that I am moving from a 30D to a 7D - could not the
: increased maximum useable ISO compensate for that to some degree?
: We're down a stop from 2.8 to 4.0, but if I'm getting similar results
: at ISO 800 with the 7D to what I got at ISO 400 on the 30D, doesn't
: that compensate a bit for the smaller aperture?
Maybe it would; but that wasn't your question, was it? I thought you said (to
paraphrase slightly), "I lost my 7D and several lenses. I'm going to get
another 7D. Which of these two replacement lenses should I get for it?" I
don't see how the suitability of either of those lenses on a 30D is relevant.
Ray opined that the low-light performance of an f/4.0 lens with IS would be
better than that of an f/2.8 lens without IS because the ability of the IS
lens to allow slower shutter speeds would more than cancel out the advantage
of the other lens's extra stop. I countered that that isn't true if the kind
of photography you do isn't compatible with the slower shutter speeds. You
have to decide whether it's true for you. And the good low-light performance
of the 7D's sensor may influence that call, since you may decide that you can,
in fact, live with the slower shutter speeds. I don't think I could, but
you're not me.
: To rephrase: I wonder if anyone's quantified the better s/n ratio at
: higher ISOs on the 7D, against the loss of light introduced by the
: reduced aperture of 2.8 to 4.0?
If you're asking "Is the 7D more than one stop faster than the 30D for a given
level of noise?", I'll just about guarantee you that the answer is yes.
Whether (and why) that affects your decision as to which lens to buy, only you
can say.
: Kind of muddies things up a bit when multiple variables are changed at
: the same time... ;)
Yeah, I guess it does.
Bob
Robert Coe
: Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
: >On 25 Dec 2009 05:53:43 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
: >: BD <rober...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >: >Hi, all.
: >: >
: >: >I recently had all my good (Canon) gear stolen in a break-in,
: >: >including a 70-200 f/2.8IS lens.
: >: >
: >: >Replacement value of this puppy is just about $2000.
: >:
: >: Good luck with that. You'll get maybe $1600. Insurance companies do
: >: not, as a rule, pay more for used goods than new. They're not in the
: >: business of being generous.
: >:
: >: >Specifically, (and I didn't know this at the time I bought it) the
: >: >lens is a little soft from 150mm to 200mm when the aperture is wide
: >: >open. Seems kind of silly for me to put $2000 into a lens when I know
: >: >I'm not going to get optimal results from it all through its range.
: >:
: >: If sharpness is your primary concern. But weight, size, zoom range are
: >: all other important attributes.
: >:
: >: >I am considering, then, the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, and also the 70-200 f/
: >: >4. The reason I am considering these is that they are a little over
: >: >half the cost of the 2.8IS, and that difference would allow me to get
: >: >another lens which I quite enjoyed when I owned it, the 70-300. It's a
: >: >non-L lens, but I always liked its sharpness. I sold that one a few
: >: >years ago.
: >:
: >: The 70-300mm is not sharper than the 70-200mm f4. And the f4 IS gets
: >: you better low-light performance than the f2.8 non IS.
: >
: >and all you have to worry about is camera shake. I can assure you that it's
: >most definitely NOT true if you're taking pictures of children at play,
:
: Don't quibble. It's just annoying.
LOL. I take it that, apropos of Frank Zappa's question, you're not the Ray
Fisher with whom one can carry on a civil discussion? ;^)
Bob
BD
> If you're asking "Is the 7D more than one stop faster than the 30D for a given
> level of noise?", I'll just about guarantee you that the answer is yes.
> Whether (and why) that affects your decision as to which lens to buy, only you
> can say.
That was my most recent train of though, yes. And it would influence
my choice... incidentally, I mentioned the 30D only because it had
been my previous camera for several years, and I only had my 7 for
about a month before it was stolen. So my estimations of what I can
achieve with various lenses are largely oriented in the context of the
30D's sensor.
Based on what you're saying, it's likely that I could use a higher ISO
on the 7D than I had on my previous body, and with the exception of
DOF, get largely similar quality with an f/4.
Obviously, if they were even close to the same price point, I wouldn't
be wrestling with this.. but I think it's gotta be the f/4 IS.
Thanks!