File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
So I'm looking at getting a telephoto lens. I have a bit of a limited budget, but I think I've narrowed it down to either

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
or
EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

they cost about the same. The constant aperture and build quality of the L lens would be nice, but the image stabilization and extra zoom of the 70-300 lens is appealing to me, too.

Can anyone tell me anything about either of the lenses?
>> Anonymous
The 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS has a rotating front element which is absolutely inexcusable for a lens costing more than $200. So fuck that.

The 70-200 has great image quality. I owned one but I didn't like the attention whoring white color of it. I sold it and bought an old Canon EF 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 for $160 that nearly matches the L for image quality and isn't as big and retarded looking.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
photozone.de probably has test charts of both.
without looking, I can tell you the 70-200 will have far superior image quality. 70-300 4-5.6's might be an interesting package though, with its IS that easily compensates for a stop of speed loss at 300mm.

I'd go for the f/4 L because I like sharp lenses and care less about zoom range (I mostly use primes). IS helps but at a certain point it's useless when your subjects move too much and the shutter speed is too slow.

get the 70-300 if you're less worried about all that, the IS must be great for handheld daylight shooting
>> Anonymous
Both are very tempting. IS and the extra reach is hard to ignore. If you do a lot of hand holding you might need that IS more. They both seem to be very good lenses.
>> Anonymous
I'm actually thinking about selling my 80-200 2.8 L lens and maybe buying a 70-200 f/4 IS L lens so I'm going over similar grounds myself.

From all the reviews the 70-200 f/4 IS L lens is apparently far superior in optics than the non IS version (disregarding the IS even).

Although the 70-300 looks interesting considering the limited budget you stated. It looks to be a pretty good deal.
>> Anonymous
>>95049

The 70-200 f/4 IS is great. Costs quite a lot more than the non-IS the OP wants.

Oddly the 2.8 IS version doesn't seem to be as good as expected. A few folk aren't finding it to be all that hot and of course it is far more expensive and twice the weight of the f/4.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
As a owner of 70-300 IS lens, I don't have much bad to say about it.
It's very sharp. I would say it's almost as sharp as 50mm f/1.8 lens.

IS is must. I can take sharp photos at 300mm, hand held, with shutter speeds as low as 1/45.

If Canon would do things a little more better (different USM, not rotating front element, etc, small things), it would definetly be a L lens.

But if the money wouldn't be a problem, I would go for 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens. It's just soooo sweet I almost came once, when I had a change to use it for 30 minutes. <3
>> Anonymous
>>95070

What do you think about the issues mentioned on photozone and elsewhere on the 2.8 IS?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>95018
Since I'm a cheap bastard, two of my four lenses are rotating-front-element designs. I've never had any sort of problem with it, even when using polarizing filters.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
While it's nice to have it all contained, I can't think of any times I've found it a hassle for the front element to move. A polarising filter or a graduated filter are the only times it'd be a pest for me normally and even that isn't impossible to overcome.

I suppose if you were using a macro ring flash it'd be annoying too, but I don't know if any of the macro lenses have a rotating front element.
>> Anonymous
>>95099

the reason you don't want the front element to move is because it can suck in dust, will lead to it breaking down sooner (more moving parts) and of course can extend and block out flash if shooting something close.

That being said it's usually fine, it's just that it definitely leads to lens degradation faster than if it didn't extend.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>95101

I see what you mean. Could be a pest for some close work. Not an issue I've come across so far. I've heard of some people having trouble with larger lenses blocking the on-board flash and casting shadows. Depends on your set up, lenses and shooting style, I'd imagine.

Would it really break down any faster? I thought there was still moving parts for focus and zooming, but they were just contained inside the casing of the other lenses without moving front elements. Obviously the build quality of L lenses is better than standard lenses, but without that lavished on them are they still better simply by their nature? I've not heard of any of the L lenses like the push zoom type having trouble.

A little dust isn't too bad at least, you can send it off for cleaning every few years if it's ever noticeable. As long as it's not acting as a vacuum cleaner like some lenses are reputed to be. It's fungus that I've always thought was the real pest.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>95071
Sorry, I meant the USM version of the lens.

>>95101
I tried the on-camera flash with my 70-300 lens, and didn't see any shadows casting.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>95105

I think you'd have to be using a large lens with a wide angle. I know someone who said they saw it sometimes with their 17-40L.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>95112
Hold the flash in one hand and camera in other, then perch on some random bit of stage/booth/0 and take photos, besides using off camera flashes are better.

Well ofc in built wireless is better, why sony > *
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>95115
It's really not that bad. You just hold the polarizer ring when you hit the autofocus button.

I'll admit it would suck a lot more if you manually focus.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>95114
But not available to us Amerifags.

Sadface.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>95116

Sounds uncomfortable, but if it gets results then you're onto something. I usually stick with a bracket if I want or need it off-camera. Keeps it all together for me, especially when in a hurry.

>>95121

Couldn't you import it? There's plenty that buy stuff from America.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>95124
Well, there's also the fact that it doesn't seem to be available outside of America yet either, based on the quick google search I just did.

Doesn't really affect me in any case, though. I shoot full frame occasionally (on my film Rebel, and hopefully one day on a full-frame dSLR) so I'll (eventually) be getting the 70-300 IS when I decide to upgrade from my 80-200 flea market lens.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>95131
>Are you hedging your bets now by buying lenses that will also work with a FF camera or do you buy for the camera you have?
Little from column A, little from column B. I shoot film in my Rebel II fairly regularly (I loves me up some Delta 3200 and Velvia 50), so it's really nice to have lenses that work on full frame. But as you'll recall, I just got the 18-55 IS. There really isn't a comparable EF lens to that without paying massively huge amounts of money. But since there's an EF lens that gives me IS and more reach than the 55-250 that's also not too horribly expensive, I have to assume I'd eventually regret going with the EF-S.
>> Anonymous
Oh right, I forgot the new 55-250 IS is EF-S.

I thought Canon merely upgraded the current 55-200 to IS and longer range while keeping it EF.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>95153

My current plan is to stick with the EF-S and if I ever decide to use a FF system then I'll be making a big enough leap and spending enough that I can justify starting to buy new lenses for it anyway. The crop system is a nice back up for me too in that distant future and the few lenses (fixed focal length ones especially) I'll have that are compatible will give me a start on FF so I won't be hurting much.
>> Anonymous
>>95160

That's my plan too but I was wondering. When the mirror or whichever part that usually fails, is it repairable at a reasonable cost?
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>95164

You can get it repaired, I believe, but I don't see me keeping the same crop body forever, so that's not too much of a worry right now.

I can't say I can remember the rough figures I've heard for that sort of repair. With the way some tricky repairs go it can cost half as much as a new body would to repair it. It's worth checking though if you are concerned. It might turn out cheaper than expected. You could probably get a quote easy enough if you asked around as it's a standard enough repair job.
>> Anonymous
I have the EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS L. The IS is EXTREMELY useful at this focal length.

I also have the 24-70mm 2.8 L, but the 70-200 is on my camera far more often.

Image quality is amazing. I compare it my prime lenses (50 1.4, 85 1.8) and the keeper shots I make with the 70-200 far outweigh the others.
>> Anonymous
>>95181
Would you be willing to give me the normal zoom for free then? ;_;
>> Anonymous
>>95181

What do you think of the report on that lens by photozone.de then? It wasn't very positive in the context of the other offerings. What about the weight and bulk of it over a day?
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>95210

That's quite a recommendation to hear. For someone who loves prime lenses to be happy with a zoom it usually has to be very good indeed. there's a few folk I've heard say they can't go back to zooms once they get used to primes. I'll keep those lenses in mind should I stumble across a pot of gold any time soon. ;)
>> Honky Kong !!+96ItZl8WKD
>>95213

> but I dislike its bokeh

Obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the 70-200mm 2.8 IS L is renowned for its bokeh. Both foreground and background. It has an eight blade circular aperture.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>95213

A challenger appears!

I know these things are a bit tricky to describe but what was wrong with the bokeh?

An over weighty lens would worry me slightly. Getting tired might mean I make more mistakes and so less keepers.
>> Honky Kong !!+96ItZl8WKD
>>95213

> but I dislike its bokeh

Obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the 70-200mm 2.8 IS L is renowned for its bokeh. Both foreground and background. It has an eight blade circular aperture.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

As far as weight, just don't let it hang off your neck using the neck strap. I almost always hand hold it, with the neck strap on to make sure I don't drop the beast.
>> Honky Kong !!+96ItZl8WKD
>>95218

> For someone who loves prime lenses to be happy with a zoom it usually has to be very good indeed

Don't get me wrong, there are some things a prime can certainly do better than my zooms. I also have a 50 1.4 prime lens. The razor this DOF at f/1.4 is certainly something I can't achieve with my f/2.8 zooms.
>> Anonymous
>>95012
op here. Decision was made for me when I found the 70-200 L lens for 450 bux. I think I'm going to be happy.
>> Anonymous
>>95223
>>95221

I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I don't get why. It doesn't detract from most images, but it doesn't add anything either. It's not creamy or watery or any of those other "flavors" of bokeh people go after. It's plain blur. It's not bad, just rather plain.

Besides the relative plainness, if I had to pin down what it is I dislike about it, it's that the bokeh is really not contrasty at all. But that just goes into plainness.

For what it's worth, it's the guy I borrowed it from's favorite lens. The bokeh just isn't to my taste, but the in-focus areas look pretty good and the performance, range, and speed are amazing.