Canon 70-200 Lenses f2.8 f4
Canon's 70-200 lenses, and a Sigma thrown in for good measure. Not to scale.
Equipment Reviews
·3 min read

Best 70-200mm Lenses for Canon : Comparison

·

Which 70-200 Lens Should I Buy? A Quick Guide

With the release of Canon’s latest offering, the EF 70-200 f2.8 USM IS II, Canon has at least 5 pro-quality lenses in the same focal length range. If you include the original EF 80-200 f2.8 from the 1990s (now discontinued, but still available used), the count is up to 6. And then there are the offerings from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and the other third parties. Tokina’s lens in this range, now over 8 years old, has fallen out of favor, and I’ll leave it out of this comparison. Tamron’s offering is very impressive optically, but does not currently have image stabilization. Sigma has recently announced the addition of a new, image stabilized version of their very popular lens (and we can hope for some minor improvements to image quality that is already very good).

As expected, with the differences in features, the prices run the gamut, from a very reasonable $700 to a very hefty $2500. The chart below should cover many of the details.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L ISCanon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L ISCanon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS IICanon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USMSigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM IISigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSMTamron 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro
Price : Amazon$1130$1899$2069$1300$790$1699$769
Weight (g)760g (1 lb 10.8 oz.)1470g (3 lb 3.85 oz.)1490g (3 lb 4.55 oz.)1310g1369g1430g1150g (2lb 8.6oz)
Dimensions76 x 172mm3.4″ x 7.8″ / 86.2mm x 197mm3.5″ x 7.8″ / 88.8 x 199mm85x194mm86 x 1843.4" x 7.8" / 86.4 x 197.6 mm3.5" x 7.6" / 89.5 x 194.3mm
IS Performance4 f-stops3 f-stops4 f-stopsnonenone4 f-stopsnone
Motor TypeUSMUSMUSMUSMSilent WaveSilent WaveStandard Micro
Minimum Focal Distance1.2m1.3m1.2m1.5m1.8m1.4m.95m
Filter Size67mm77mm77mm77mm77mm77mm77mm
Lens HoodET-74 (Cost: $55)ET-86 (Cost: $65)ET-87 (Cost: $74.95)ET-83II (Cost: $65)IncludedIncludedIncluded
Tripod Collaryesyesyesyesyesyesyes
Internal Focusingyesyesyesyesyesyesyes
70mm RESOLUTION
MTF at Center and Edge at f8		2092 , 1993.5
(excellent)		1868, 1866.5
(excellent)		2394, 2376
(excellent)		1908.5 , 1990.5
(excellent)		2029 , 1972.5
(excellent)
70mm RESOLUTION
MTF at Center and Edge at f4		2090.5 , 2004.5
(excellent)		1917.5, 1827.5
(excellent, very good)		2530, 2437
(excellent)		1930.5 , 1922
(excellent)		1984 , 1813
(excellent, very good)
200mm RESOLUTION
MTF at Center and edge at f8		2084 , 2047
(excellent)		1880.5 , 1873.5
(excellent)		2319, 2298
(excellent)		1956 , 1812
(excellent, very good)		1772.5 , 1801
(very good)
200mm RESOLUTION
MTF at Center and edge at f4		2024 , 2018.5
(excellent)		1735.5 , 1682.5
(very good)		2499, 2318
(excellent)		1987.5 , 1894.5
(excellent)		1748.5 , 1635
(very good)

The MTF 50 numbers provided are all from independent tests (photozone.de) on similar equipment. I’ve refrained from providing MTF data for the other lenses (which are not currently tested at photozone.de) because MTF numbers are notoriously poor comparatives when testing conditions are not identical. Keep in mind that in each case, higher numbers are better, and the somewhat arbitrary cutoff point between the attribution of “excellent” and “very good” is 1850.

For what it’s worth, tests on the latest Canon lens (the mark II) have produced very impressive results. In addition to the improved IS, the image quality is now remarkably high; so high, in fact, that DPreviews give it a “best in class”, as it outperforms even the latest comparable Nikon lens.

How to Decide?

Determinations on what to buy will most likely come down to three factors. The most important is probably subject matter, followed by output type, and finally, your budget!

All of these lenses are designed for use in low light situations, with either a large maximum aperture, image stabilization, or both. Additionally, all of these lenses are designed for full-frame sensor cameras (such as the Canon 5D MarkII) but will also work on APS-C sensor cameras (like the Canon 7D, T2i, 50D, etc). With the APS-C models, you’ll benefit from the sweet-spot effect and get the least vignetting and most consistent sharpness from center to edge.

You can choose a lens with a slightly smaller aperture (f4) but with IS :

  • if you shoot in low light but photograph subjects that are not fast moving. An image stabilized f4 lens will give you the equivalent of 3 times more light (3 f-stops) in a situation for hand-holding, but since your shutter speeds will still be slower you won’t have action stopping power.  If an f2.8 lens were shooting at 1/250th of a second, an f4 would need to shoot at 1/125th. A non-IS 200mm lens should not be hand held below 1/250th sec, whereas an IS lens can safely be held at 1/30th in many cases.
  • if you primarily shoot scenics, architecture, etc, or shoot tripod mounted. If you use a tripod, then the matter of image stabilization is moot, and the aperture is much less important.
  • if you don’t shoot in low light. Canon’s f4 IS lens has amazing resolution and is relatively inexpensive, so unless you need the single extra f-stop, it’s a great choice.

You can buy a non-image stabilized lens :

  • if you primarily shoot from a tripod or monopod, or need to stop action. Sports photographers and wildlife photographers will not benefit as much from image stabilization because they’re required to shoot at high shutter speeds to stop the action, which already reduces the need for IS. Although IS does help sometimes, it can also sometimes make small adjustments in composition slow or otherwise awkward, too.
  • if you shoot with flash, or in bright light. If you shoot with flash but want to keep bright lights/windows etc in the background sharp, IS can be handy, though.

You should buy an f2.8 image stabilized lens :

  • if you can afford it. They are the most expensive, but give you the most flexibility.
  • if you frequently shoot in low light, especially with high ISO, and with relatively slow moving subjects. News and Wedding photography really require this type of flexibility, unless you’re a heavy flash user/strobist.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

What have your experiences been with these lenses? Although I’ve used most of them, I have not tested many of them thoroughly. I’d be interested to hear your stories and recommendations!

Tags
Matthew Gore
Editor-in-Chief
Matthew Gore is the Editor-in-Chief and Administrator of Light & Matter Media.
Related

35 Comments

  1. Help… I would like to start taking photographs of my grandsons who team rope and show cattle in livestock competitions. I have an older canon t2i camera. Would I need to upgrade my camera? What is a decent lens I could use?

    Reply

    1. Hi Karen,

      You certainly don’t NEED to upgrade your camera, although there are always improvements available at some price point. Your T2i has a good sensor and the autofocus system should been just fine, with a good lens… and a good lens will make all the difference.

      A 70-200 is a good place to start. It’s fast, versatile, and the optics are generally excellent… and they should give you enough light even if you’re in an indoor arena (though you may need to raise your ISO).

      Probably the best option on the market right now is the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2 . It’s not cheap, but it’s wonderfully inexpensive compared to the Canon version, but the optical quality and image stabilization are just as good as the Canon. Any lens of this type will be big and heavy, but the Tamron is no more so than the others.

      If you think you’ll mostly be shooting outdoors, then there are a few other lenses that you’ll be able to get away with that will get you closer to the action (though you’ll probably want to be down at the edge of the fence regardless). The new Canon 70-300 will give you a better zoom range than the Tamron, but quite a bit less light (f/2.8 provides 4 times more light than f/5.6).

      If you have a bigger budget or will need more telephoto capability, there are lots of great options out there. Let me know.

      Oh, and if you still are thinking about upgrading the camera body, the new Canon 90D or the less expensive 77D are both great options.

      – Matthew

      Reply

  2. My very first venture into the L series lens. I just purchased the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS II. Wow, it is a very heavy lens. I am trying to decide if I should return the lens and further research my options. I do both outdoor (Primarily) and indoor portraits and about 6 weddings a year (by choice). I really need and want to take my work to the next level. I especially need the new lens for low light wedding ceremony and venue situations. I take the close up ceremony shots from an unpredictable distance and my second takes the wide angle shots. (and not to add boo hoo comments, but I am a partially disabled photographer…stage 3 colon 10 year cancer survivor with permanent neuropathy, Walking alot helps me tremendously, however, with my camera and lens bag, due to the numerous abdominal surgeries, was just told if able have my customers carry heavy items.) So sorry for all the backstory, just added to help you with recommendations. I have a Canon 80D and almost purchased the Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 Art DC HSM Lens, but that too weighs 3 lbs. Help and thank you.

    Reply

    1. Hi Lucy,

      First, congrats on being a survivor :-) My mother had quite a bit of neuropathy from a chemo drug
      called Xeloda, and I can understand what a problem it can be.

      That said, if you want the low-light capabilities, flexibility and image quality of a nice 70-200 f/2.8, there aren’t a lot of choices: they are all pretty big and heavy by necessity. The modern Tamron and Sigma variations are just as heavy or heavier than the Canon.

      If you can live without the zoom flexibility, then there are a couple of other options that might be a little lighter. A good 85mm f/1.4 lens will be even better in low-light (4x more light than the f/2.8) and even though it’s a shorter lens, you’ll still get the good background separation because of the shallow depth of field of the larger aperture. Canon’s new 85 f/1.4 IS is expensive but excellent, and Sigma’s 85 f/1.4 ART is one of the sharpest lenses on the market… but it’s bigger and heavier. Of course, you could save a little weight and a lot of money by going with the old Canon 85mm f/1.8, but you’d lose a lot of light, too.

      Alternately, there’s Sigma’s 105mm f/1.4, which is, unfortunately, also large and heavy… but excellent in low light and gives you really dreamy, smooth bokeh. Now that I think about it, it may be heavier than the 70-200, which doesn’t solve any problems.

      Of course, 70-200 f/4 lenses are an option because they’re significantly lighter, but the’re not great it low light and the don’t provide the subject separation. And you know that the 50-100 f/1.8 is also big and heavy.

      So, I’m afraid I can’t be of much help, here. I’ll give it some thought, but right now, it seems like the 85mms might work, if you can live with a prime. Good luck!

      – Matthew

      Reply

  3. Hi Matthew,

    So here’s the situation. Hopefully you can assist.

    I want to shoot sports and wildlife, I have about 4 years experience and I currently own an EF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 with a Canon 7D and whilst this lens has taken some nice shots, in all honesty it’s really just not good enough. I other worlds I’m looking for a decent upgrade.

    I have been told a prime lens such as the 400mm f5.6 would not be appropriate because its not very flexible. Would you agree with this for this?

    Here are the zoom options and why I like/dislike them. My two biggest factors will be durability/weather resistance and focal length if this helps.

    * 70-200 f2.8 IS I (With 1.4x or 2x extender) (Probably my favourite, however reading this review maybe not)
    * 70-200 f2.8 (With 1.4x or 2x extender) ( No IS could be an issue and no weather resistance) (At least the price is good)
    * 70-200 f2.8 IS II (With 1.4x or 2x extender)
    * 70-200 f4 IS (With 1.4x or 2x extender)
    * 70-300L (It has had good reviews, but the aperture is annoying for the price you pay)
    * 100-400 I or II (Both great because of the range, but not good in low light and version one is a bit average)

    Very importantly, how do these lens operate with the two Canon teleconverters?

    In particular between the 70-200 and 100-400 which would you prefer? I’m been doing research for months and I starting to struggle. I find an excellent lens, but then find out the price, or like the look of a lens, but then it too short or poor light. I really need a hand.

    Thanks in advance,

    Daniel

    Reply

    1. Hi Daniel,

      This really depends on how and what you want to shoot, I think. Personally, I love shooting sports and wildlife with a good 70-200 f/2.8. For shooting indoor sports without flash (basketball, volleyball, etc) or outdoor sports at night, shooting with anything larger than an f/2.8 is rough… I’m usually pushing the upper acceptable-limits of my ISO even at f/2.8 to get good action-stopping shutter speeds. For daylight sports, an f/4 (maybe even an f/5.6) is just fine, or if you use lots of flash equipment.

      I have a 2x teleconverter that I’ve used with my 70-200 f/2.8 and also with a 400mm for shooting wildlife, and I’m rarely happy with the results. At f/2.8 with the teleconverter, the aperture becomes and f/5.6, and for quality reasons, I have to stop down to f/8, which becomes hard to work with in all but the best light. The images tend to be not much sharper than if I’d just cropped, and the converter slows down the focusing speeds too. I use the 2x only as a last resort, or in bright daylight… and since most of my wildlife shooting is in the morning or early evening

      If you haven’t already seen my video comparison of the Canon and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, you should consider it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOGonTkmkFU

      The 200mm reach of a 70-200mm f/2.8 can, unfortunately, be frustrating at times, but if I could only carry one lens on my camera (for anything… portraits, landscape, journalism, etc), it would be that lens.

      – Matt

      Reply

      1. Hi Matt,

        Thanks for your help, yes I did watch your video. Did you end up resolving the issue with the Mark II?

        I think my best bet is one of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. But 200mm (320mm) on a 7D is really not enough reach for me. So would the Canon 1.4x teleconverter deliver good results? This would give me reach of up to 450mm.

        So the options stand at this.
        * 70-200 USM
        * 70-200 IS
        * 70-200 IS II

        In terms of quality obviously the Mark II is superior, but which would pair best with a 1.4x tele, and overall perform the best?

        Thanks again for the professional help, hopefully you can give me some advice.

        Cheers, Daniel

        Reply

      2. Hi Matt,

        I have almost made a decision. Just one last thing if you don’t mind.

        My final decision lies between the 70-200 USM IS I and the 70-200 USM IS II.

        I’m completely sold if someone including you can tell me that the mark I works well (as long as it’s better than my 18-200) IQ and auto focus wise with a Canon x2 III teleconverter? If so I don’t see the need to spend an additional $1000 to get the overpriced mark II.

        Hoping you have had good experiences, thanks again,

        Daniel

        Reply

        1. Hi Daniel,

          The Mark I definitely will be a strong step up from your 18-200, but it’s not quite as sharp as the Tamron, which isn’t as sharp as the Canon Mark II. The 70-200 Mark I is compatible with teleconverters, and you shouldn’t have any problems there, but I haven’t specifically used those two together. The Canon Mark II is certainly expensive, but it’s also a really awesome lens.

          – Matt

          Reply

    2. To be honest, I don’t really remember. I wrote this nearly five years ago. I see that it’s probably time to refresh the article, though… the new Tamron deserves to be in consideration, and the older Canon IS and one of the Sigmas should be removed…

      – Matthew

      Reply

  5. I hired the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II for a wedding and regretted it to an extent, for two reasons. Firstly, the depth of field was so shallow at f/2.8 that while I usually had the eyes of the main subject in shot, other important elements were out of focus, so I was often stopping down to about f/4 anyway. On a good body, the loss of a stop in aperture is easily compensated by adding a stop to ISO. Secondly, with two camera bodies on my person the whole day, the extra weight of the 70-200 was a real issue.

    Next time I hire, I’m going for the 70-200mm f/4 IS to save the weight (and money), and remove the temptation of going too shallow in depth of field.

    Reply

    1. Hi Neil,
      It’s interesting to hear you say that; so many photographers I know are currently shooting with large aperture primes (85mm f/1.2, 35mm f/1.4, etc…) and loving them, yet I also frequently find that I prefer to stop down a little when working close to my subjects. I suppose that it’s a matter of expectations and shooting style. As much as I like the Canon 200mm f/4 IS, I’d never trade in my f/4 for one… those times when I need the f/2.8 (for light or for background separation) are just too common.
      – Matthew

      Reply

  6. I love this lens. I was torn between this and the 2.8, but ultimately I couldn’t convince myself to spend twice as much. Maybe sometime. Anyhow, this lens is sharp, AF is very fast, and its not really all that heavy. Very happy.

    Reply

  7. Hi I am really stuck and a little confused, I would like a canon 70-200 but not sure which one to choose? my camera is the 7D with the Tamron sp 70-300 f4-5.6 ” tamron is ok but too slow I feel”
    I go to airshows twice a year for a total of about 7 days & shoot about 2500+ images of slow and extremely fast aircraft.
    I am also going semi pro/pro for portrait & weddings.
    I would like a lens that will accommodate both of these aspects of photography, I do not mind what it costs but I need to make sure that I do not make a costly mistake.
    I keep leaning to the 70-200 F2.8 IS ii but still do not know if this is the right choice

    Any help would be really appreciated

    Reply

    1. The non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 is actually an optically better lens than the original 70-200 f/2.8 IS (though the IS II is better than either of them). Optically, the f4 and the f2.8 are both excellent… is one of them is better, the difference is not significant. So, the deciding factor is what you’ll be photographing, and if you’ll be doing so hand-held. If you shoot with a tripod, the IS of the f4 is useless, so you’d want the f2.8. If you shoot stationary subjects hand held, the f4 will be better (by about 2 f-stops), but if you shoot moving subjects in low light, the f2.8 will be better by one f-stop.

      Reply

  9. Hello Matt and happy birthday ! Thank you for all the advices you gave me ! It means a lot to me ! You see more realistic then me ! In Romania everything happens quickly at wedding ! For the artisic session with the groom and the bride you have only half an hour ! Sometimes 45 minutes ! And very rare an hour ! Every body are stressed and you know well is hard to work under this condition ! I wish to do more and better but without time we can’t do always something special ! For next year i put the condition to receive more time otherwise i will refuse ! But you said something very right , it is better to have an assistant ! I hope i’m not boring you and maybe ,when you have the time , you will critic more of my photos ! I wish you a happy new year ,a better year with much more achievements ! Thank you for your time ! All the best…Paul

    Reply

    1. Hi Paul,

      Thanks :)

      In some parts of the world (Australia, in particular) the photographers seem to get hours and hours with the couple on the wedding day, and often drive around town to multiple locations. Even if I could do that, I wouldn’t :) I’ve always believed that the wedding day should be about the wedding, not about the photographer… so IF I do artistic, posed photos of the couple (and I usually do, I guess) I do them in about half an hour, too. Maybe as much as an hour.

      When you get a chance, please upload some of your photos here! I’d be more than happy to give you my thoughts on them, and it’s easier to do when they’re uploaded separately here. If you’re not already a member, then register… it takes just a second, and then upload them to “My Album” in your profile. :)

      Good luck in the coming year!

      – Matthew

      Reply

    1. Hi Paul,

      Thanks for posting the link to your work! I’m very impressed with the quality of your photos- you have an excellent eye for composition, and you also caught some great moments. I also like your choice of music, incidentally :) I spent a couple of months in Spain several years ago… that’s what the music reminds me of. Your shots near the church windows are great (they really all are quite good), and I like your use of black and white, too, especially indoors.

      I see that you used flash in some of your photos, and in some cases it looks well done. In others, it looks as though you used the flash on the camera, and even with a small diffuser, the results can look a little harsh and flat. In the future, you might want to try using your flash off-camera, and perhaps with a larger umbrella, either on a stand or held by an assistant (around here, assistants can be hired for next to nothing for a day) so that you get a little more contour from your light. There were also a couple of out-door photos that looked like they would benefit from some fill flash. But overall, these were minor issues… the photos are beautiful on the whole.

      Incidentally, if you log in to the site here (I seem to recall that you’re a member, but I could be wrong…), you can go to your “Profile” page, then click on “Album” and you can upload individual photos, which can then be commented on there in your album, which would allow for more useful insights, I suspect :)

      Thanks again!

      – Matthew

      Reply

  11. Thank you very much Matt ! You solved my dilemma ! I’m going to buy the tamron 70-200 and sail my 28-200 Sigma ! And on 50d ,i keep my Sigma 18-125, for now ! I will not hesitate to ask your advice again ! You will get tired of me !  … Thanks

    Reply

  12. hello ! My name is Paul, i’m a wedding photographer ! i have a canon eos 50d and a 5d mark 2 camera ! i want to buy a tele lens and and a wide lens ! i don’t have the money for a canon 70-200 at 2.8 and i have a dilemma to choose between a sigma or a tamron both at 70-200 at 2.8 . i’m interest in image quality not high speed focusing or silence ! Also i want to ask about the canon lens 24-105 at f4 and sigma 24-70 at 2.8 if is it ok ?! Thank you !

    Reply

    1. Hi Paul,

      A couple of things to keep in mind: pretty much ANY major lens made today is going to be really high quality. The differences in image quality at this point are very very narrow, and usually only visible at high magnification, and even then, only if you’ve used great technique (ie, tripod, good lighting/flash, etc). So, although there is a difference in image quality between these lenses, it’s so minimal as to be negligible for most photographers. When I do wedding photography, I usually worry more about focal length and available light than absolute resolution, since wedding clients are going to be looking at low-res web photos and then prints that usually won’t show the subtle differences (due to my hand-holding)… and many people have complexions that aren’t best served by ultra-sharp photos anyway :)

      That said, my experience is that the Tamron is slightly sharper than the Sigma, and in fact, is slightly sharper than the original Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS (though not the current 70-200 f2.8 IS II or the 70-200 f4 IS). However, there new Sigma with image-stabilization has been released, and I haven’t tested one yet. Reviews that I’ve read say that the stabilization is great, and the lens is pretty sharp… so it’s worth looking into (though it’s a bit expensive). So, if you don’t need IS I’d go with the Tamron. Again, though keep in mind that 2.8 to f4 is only a one f-stop difference. The IS on Canon’s f4, though, gives you an extra 3-4 stops…. so you can actually hand-hold it in light that is 2-3 stops darker than you could with a 2.8. Obviously, this still doesn’t stop motion in low light, and you don’t get as shallow depth of field as with a 2.8. But it’s something to keep in mind.

      As for the wide to-mid range: The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (I used one for about 6 months before it was stolen!) is a really good lens in the mid to long end of its zoom range. At the wide end, the center is really high resolution, but towards the corners it’s a little soft (until you stop down past f8 or smaller). I was pretty happy with mine. The Canon is also not a perfect lens…but it will certainly get the job done. My biggest problem with it is the amount of barrel distortion at the wide end. The resolution is generally pretty high, though.

      On a side note, if you’re looking for a lens for slightly better light, Canon’s OLD EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II can sometimes be found on Ebay and such really cheap, and it has remarkably good optical quality. Very low distortion, high resolution, at maybe $100. It doesn’t have the greatest build quality, but for the price….

      – Matt

      Reply

  13. Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APOMacro HSM II
    To me the scores on the table look quite good. Would anyone buy this lens? I would like to buy the Canon F4 without IS form my needs, but with the price of the Sigma I can afford the 2.8. I do not know any lenses outside the normal 18-75mm, Sony I have.

    Reply

    1. Hi Luna,

      First things first… I’m in the middle of an extended photo trip, and haven’t been able to check in here very often, so thanks for your patience!

      I bought a Sigma 70-210 f2.8 APO lens when I was about to enter college to study photojournalism, and I was always very happy with the optical quality. The lens back then didn’t have a high speed motor, so it was slower than a Canon lens (I was using a Canon EOS A2), but it wasn’t a problem.

      These days, with the ease of pixel-peeping, a lot of people get hung up on a level of resolution that is simply un-important for the type of work they do. With wedding work, with most journalism, there is a perfectly acceptable level of resolution loss (hand holding always causes a loss anyway). You can still get crisp, sharp photos without having the highest resolution.

      If you do a lot of fine art photography in which resolution is very important, or landscape work, then you might want to consider the Canon f4. Otherwise, I think you’ll be really happy with the Sigma. They’re a little heavy, but they feel very good and solid.

      However, I’d still recommend the Canon f4 IS model if you can manage it. Yes, there’s a loss of 1 f-stop in aperture, but a gain of 3 or 4 in IS, and it’s ultimately a sharper lens. If you can save the extra $400 or so, you might consider it. Otherwise, I think you’ll be really happy with the Sigma.

      – Matthew

      Reply

  14. Hi Matthew..
    I’m new for photojournalism..And I going to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non IS lens(including Law lit works).I also like to do some micro photography..then I need to buy canon 100 2.8 micro.. can I do some micro works with 70-200 f2.8 lens? How is canon 70-200 f4 non IS + canon 100 2.8 micro.If I buy both lenses for canon 70-200 f2.8 price,I can do some indoor micro works with canon 100 2.8 micro.What is your Idea..I am not doing more indoor shootings.

    Reply

    1. It really depends on exactly how close you need to get. None of the Canon 70-200 lenses will get you into anything like the 1:1 range. However, they will get you pretty close to your subject… like this: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70652

      As a journalist, your 70-200 is going to be very important. I would not skimp on that lens at the expense of a macro lens! Since macro lenses are relatively inexpensive (compared to a good 70-200), I’d buy the best 70-200 that you can afford and then save a little longer, if necessary, to buy a macro lens. In the meantime, you could consider the Canon 60mm 2.8 Macro ($395), which is similar to a 100mm lens on a Canon APS-C sensor camera, or the Sigma 50mm macro ($299) or Sigma 70mm macro ($499), which are also both great lenses.

      The macro lenses that I mention are shorter focal length than the 100mm that you mention, but if you need the extra focal length to get some distance between yourself and your subject, you’ll probably be out at a distance that can be handled by your 70-200mm.

      Good luck!

      – Matthew

      Reply

  15. Hey Matthew, I am a first time reader of your blog and happy that I found you. I shoot a wide spectrum of photography at the moment as I started shooting professionally about 3 years ago. With budget concerns of starting up I have choose to use the Canon 50D with a mix of L and EF-S lenses. One of the lenses I am using is the EF 70-200 f2.8 USM lens (without IS). I primarily bought it for low light portraits and fast action however, because it has proven to be my ‘best’ lens in my arsenal I have been using it for my Wedding Portraits as well. However, when I use it for weddings I use it hand-held. Though most weddings are during the day, and I use anywhere from 1-3 580EX flashes for the formal shots, it really does get the job done. However the other day I was shooting some business portraits. The shots were done inside and I was mixing flash and sunlight to get the effect I wanted. However I had to shoot at almost 1/80th AND I did not have my tripod handy. (One of my stands I use for my flashes failed and I used a 580EX with the tripod mount with my tripod) I got less then exciting results. Most of the shots were blurry when magnified. Though they looked ok at smaller sizes (even in print). If this becomes a trend I assume you would recommend trading up to the IS but would my money be better spent on the f4 IS? Let me know what you think. I appreciate it greatly!!

    Reply

    1. Just to be clear, let me say that the 70-200 f2.8 IS II is the better lens; in fact, it may be THE best zoom lens available on the market today. Now, with that out of the way…

      With respect to image quality… both lenses will give you better performance than the non-IS lens that you currently have, although unless you’re making big enlargements, the difference may be purely academic.

      So, the IS on the 70-200 f4 lens claims 4 stops worth of stability, but obviously the lens is 1 stop slower. This gives you a total improvement of 3 stops of performance, making that 1/80th of a second more like 1/320th sec., which is pretty good, especially if you already have a stable hand.

      What more will the 70-200 f2.8 IS II give you? One more stop of exposure if you open up to f2.8. Less depth of field at that aperture, if you need even more help separating your subject from the background (you might take a few test shots at f2.8 and f4 with your current lens to see how much difference this makes to you). Slightly higher resolution if you’re shooting tripod mounted (or perhaps with your strobes only, and at low power).

      The difference in price?
      Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II : $2403
      – Canon 70-200 f4 IS : $1130
      ———————————————-
      = $1273

      So, I guess the only question is… how much is that extra f-stop worth to you? There have certainly been times that I’d have been happy to pay $1000 for an extra stop of light, but not many. You’ll have to evaluate how the price of one of these lenses will fit into your budget. If it’s a business expense for you, it may be a complete write-off anyway, so cost may not be an issue.

      Good luck, and I hope that this has helped a bit!

      – Matthew

      Reply

      1. Thank you so much for your response! Very good point about doing shots at 2.8 and at 4.0 and compare. In fact I originally had the 70-200 f4 L USM originally but found the 2.8 counterpart for the same price so I even traded the lenses. I too started a long time ago with 35mm film and was in the camp that the faster the lens the better and that I would literally trade my left arm for that 1 stop if i needed it, especially in a Zoom lens being that the faster lenses usually meant a great deal more quality as well. Ok long story short, I did compare the 4.0 shots that I had with the 2.8 lens shots I replaced it with and I have to say, tho the 2.8 is nice in ultra low light, the degree of separation at 85mm or greater was so shallow its ‘almost’ unusable in some situations. In fact if I am at 200mm at 2.8, a portrait is sometimes too ‘soft’ to be considered. Anyway, thanks for the food for thought! I appreciate it greatly!!!!

        Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *