Canon 70-200mm f4.0 L

[georgeinci]

My husband is encouraging me to get another lens - he wants a zoom. I want an L series (if I'm spending big bucks I want something to show for it!!). I know the Canon 70-200mm f4.0 L is cheap for an L series lens it's quite an investment for us.
Any thoughts?
Would it be too heavy?
Help!
Georgina x

[dugarner]

Are you sold on the IS vs. the non-IS lens? I see the older lens goes for $700 new on Amazon, while the IS goes for about $2200. I am a zoom fanatic, I always say the weight and size is worth the telephoto payoff. But that's just me. I did have the Sony 70-200 2.8 for a week last year and it was extremely heavy, but I could hand-hold just fine (shot a wedding with it). It was gorgeous and definitely worth it, though the f/4 is a few stops up, it would still be worth the investment.

[georgeinci]

Thanks Sarah. I don't think my budget will stretch to the IS version! I just really want to get into the action outside - something my beloved 50mm can't do! I see you are waiting on a new arrival - the Canon 550D (European name!!) . I have the 500D and adore it. You will love the 50mm lens - I get such stunning potraits with it!

[Jen D]

Hi Georgina,

I have the 70-200 f4.0 L and I love it I use it outdoors only for the most part. It has been a great lens for me. I love that I get the zoom and it is half the weight of the 2.8 version. I really don't need the lower aperture because I use it outdoors and the times I needed a steadier hand I put it on the tripod


Oh... and it will be much heavier than your 50mm but it isn't much heavier than my 24-70 f 2.8.

[anxela]

The 70-200 f/4.0 is not too heavy... Not heavy enough to give you problems with your elbows and wrists anyway, like I got right after I got the 2.8 IS, which weighs 1.4 kg.

I bought the 2.8 IS (after saving for ages - I only had the 50 mm 1.4 for quite some time because I really wanted that 2.8 IS), and a friend of mine who had the 4.0 non-IS at the moment, upgraded to the 2.8 IS a couple of weeks after he tried mine. LOL. It's great glass. What I love about it is the shallow depth of field at 2.8 which gives you amazing portrait photography, but you can also achieve this with different techniques (standing close to subject, have the subject stand far from the background).

I guess you can get some good offers on the first version 2.8IS now that there's a new one here. Just a thought - check it out on ebay or something

[esther_a]

The 70-200 f/4.0 is a similar weight to my lenses and that's no problem. I couldn't say about the f/2.8 but I don't think I'd want to carry it around in a camera bag all day. What fun for you to be able to spend the money! With young children and your photographic skills you will make such great use of a good lens! I'm so glad you're going for a zoom

[cincirachel]

I love my 70-200 L. I really only use it outside and don't have trouble with it. It takes the most beautiful photos with the creamiest backgrounds. And it's a bargain for the great reviews it gets online!! Do it! You won't regret it.

[dugarner]

I got my 400mm f/5.6L in yesterday, and it is unbelievable. I took a picture of the moon right after I unpacked it and I was blown away by the detail---even at a huge crop. I think it would definitely be worth your money. I got the 55-250mm as a kit lens so I needed to cover 250mm and up, which is why I picked the 400mm. The fixed length was irritating for about five minutes, and then I got used to it.

Have fun!

[esther_a]

irritating for about five minutes, and then I got used to it.

lol!! I kept wondering why on earth anyone would have a prime lens, and then I borrowed one and had the same experience.
Of course, it depends on what you're trying to photograph... but for wildlife it's ideal.

[anxela]

Originally Posted by esther_a

lol!! I kept wondering why on earth anyone would have a prime lens, and then I borrowed one and had the same experience.

Oh, that is funny, because I started out with only a 50mm f/1.4, and used to wonder why on earth anyone would have a zoom lens! Then I bought the 70-200, and thought that it could be handy in some situations, and now I have a 24-70 as well. But I'm still a prime kind of girl... Recently bought the 100mm macro, and it's amazing.

[georgeinci]

I've just ordered a 70-200mm f/4 USM off Amazon! Wow! I feel very nervous having spent so much money on just one item (I dare not tell my mother it cost me £500!!). Today we popped into our local camera store (who were selling this at nearly £80 more!) and I got to have a trial run on my camera. I have just downloaded the shots and they are great - even if they are of random shoppers in the mall - LOL! I was really worried about it feeling too heavy on my camera but it just felt nice - solid, sturdy and jolly well built! Here'e hopeing I still feel like this after a day out!
Thankyou girls for all your advice - I really do appreciate it!
I now eagerly await my new toy - it's just like Christmas!! (But hey it is our wedding anniversary on Friday. Eleven years of marriage surely equates to one expensive lens!)
Georgina xx

[carollee]

Can't wait to see your photos, they are already stunning. You'll make that baby sing!!

[anxela]

Congratulations on your new "baby", Georgina! I'm sure you'll love it! Like Carol, I can't wait to see your pics!

[esther_a]

What fun! Congratulations on your purchase. And congratulations on your GSO today!

[Janet1949]

Lucky you Georgina.. I cant imagine you could take better shots than you already do!

Can't wait to see some of your pics...

[alaina]

I own the f/2.8. It all comes down to what you are shooting. I've read that many use the 70-200mm for wedding photography but I tend to think that I have to stand too far away even though most of my images seem to be around 80mm. I actually use the 24-105mm as my everyday go-to lens. They all seem heavy to me after carrying them for a while. I just carried two 5Ds walking in a parade last weekend with both of the lenses, not by choice but my husband got recruited with other parents to carry a banner. I generally use the 70-200 for indoor photography while shooting dance performances in low light. In this case, I needed him to shoot with the other but had to do double duty.

It's a good to have lens but it depends on what you are shooting. You may just want to consider an extender. The other option is to rent one to see if you like it enough to buy the lens. And most shops will let you throw it onto your body and try it out in the store.

[inspiredarts]

Myself and quite a few photographers I know say that their 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II is the BEST camera they have. It is more expensive that the 70-200mm f4 but it's well worth it many times over.


BJ


BJ Adkins
Inspired Arts Photography

[esther_a]

I heard that, too. I heard that it is as good as a prime lens throughout its zoom. That is very amazing. I wondered why there were so many used 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM lenses for sale on eBay!! But at $2,200, the new model is a bit out of my league.

[dugarner]

Originally Posted by esther_a

I heard that, too. I heard that it is as good as a prime lens throughout its zoom. That is very amazing. I wondered why there were so many used 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM lenses for sale on eBay!! But at $2,200, the new model is a bit out of my league.

I rented the Sony version of this lens last year for a wedding shoot, and yes, it is as good as a prime all the way through. It kicked tail at 200mm 2.8, which is where I shot the whole time I had the lens. I saw a dramatic reduction in noise at a higher ISO (on my Sony, 400 was the highest I could go), the focus was tack-sharp, and the motor was so quiet, I never heard it focusing. It never hunted---ever---and focused in a fraction of a second. My old 75-300 Sony lens would whirr and grind all the time, and took forever to focus (several seconds, usually). I would love to have a macro lens and the 70-200 2.8, I feel like that would complete my lens collection forever. I regret not having a faster lens at longer zoom, esp. for indoor action photos, though I love my 400mm L. It requires a tripod for all indoor shooting (I used it for a choral event a while back and only had a monopod, so the pictures didn't turn out too well).

It is definitely worth every penny of the $2,200. But one option is renting, if you have an event you know you could use it for. It was only $100 to rent for the entire week. Lens rental companies sell off their equipment every once in a while, too.

[KimR+]

Such an exciting purchase!! Hope you enjoy your new lens!!