Still mulling over what lenses to get for my Canon SLR

I've officially decided against the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS in favor of the f/2.8 version. But... now that I have enough money to afford the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, I'm only a stones throw from being able to afford the Canon 70-200mm f/2.7L IS II. I am pretty sure that I will get a refurb direct from Canon the next time they offer 15 or 20% off.

So that means I will get a the USM version non IS for 1159.20-20% (hopefully) for 927.36

OR

I can continue to hoard my pennies and get the IS for 1999.20-20% (hopefully) for 1599.36.

For only 672 more bucks... I get the top of the line in that category. Both are crazy heavy, both have a 77mm filter thread, and both are highly praised for their image quality.

and I presume resale might be better for the IS since the new version came out around January of 2010 (at least that is when Amazon started selling them). The non-is has been around since 2002... which may suggest that it could be updated and consequently would be less valued if I ever want to sell it.

It's all a conundrum and I guess I'm getting closer to a decision. Hopefully. Thanks for any help... I do find talking (arguing) about it does help make my decision clearer.

http://www.the-digital-picture.co...eview.aspx

Both are F2.8 lenses. The IS version is heavier than the Non IS version. We are talking about 10oz here though, so not much. The Non IS version has USM so I don't see them updating it for optical reasons since its quite good as is. So I don't think you have to worry about a new version coming out anytime soon.

What are you shooting again? If your shooting high shutter speeds for sports for instance, it is my understanding that IS won't help since it disables at higher shutter speeds. If you are shooting low light portraits or weddings then yes it will help and is probably worth it.

Have you looked at the 3rd party market? I have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 that I am very happy with. Optically its great about 96% of the Canon. Focus is good on my 7D. I shot sports, airshows etc mostly so for me IS was not worth the $650 when I bought it while still in school. I know Sigma now has a lens with technology like IS. Not sure how good it is but it might be worth a look.

As far as weight, it might be a lot more than your use to now, but it's not really that bad. You get use to it and build muscles. There is always the route of monopods but for a 70-200 I have found it more trouble than its worth. Also learning how to hold the camera properly, brace yourself and breather goes a long way in camera shake and deal with arm fatigue. Sorry to add to the more things to think about.

Quote from cavan : http://www.the-digital-picture.co...eview.aspx

Thanks.

Quote from LiquidRetro : Both are F2.8 lenses. The IS version is heavier than the Non IS version. We are talking about 10oz here though, so not much. The Non IS version has USM so I don't see them updating it for optical reasons since its quite good as is. So I don't think you have to worry about a new version coming out anytime soon. What are you shooting again? If your shooting high shutter speeds for sports for instance, it is my understanding that IS won't help since it disables at higher shutter speeds. If you are shooting low light portraits or weddings then yes it will help and is probably worth it. Have you looked at the 3rd party market? I have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 that I am very happy with. Optically its great about 96% of the Canon. Focus is good on my 7D. I shot sports, airshows etc mostly so for me IS was not worth the $650 when I bought it while still in school. I know Sigma now has a lens with technology like IS. Not sure how good it is but it might be worth a look. As far as weight, it might be a lot more than your use to now, but it's not really that bad. You get use to it and build muscles. There is always the route of monopods but for a 70-200 I have found it more trouble than its worth. Also learning how to hold the camera properly, brace yourself and breather goes a long way in camera shake and deal with arm fatigue. Sorry to add to the more things to think about.

I've thought about most of that. I have an 8 year old... so who knows what she will be interested in. She plays softball now, but that could be indoor basketball because she is decent at the moment. So I know 2.8 is what I need... and I'm a big guy with more muscles than most. My wrists will have to get use to it, but it won't be that long of an acclimation period.

I think the IS... is what I'm looking at.

I'm a big fan of IS. Ideal shutter speed at the long end of that lens without IS to stop camera shake on a crop camera is ~1/320s. For sports that's largely irrelevant but there are plenty of other indoor events (plays, recitals, ceremonies, dances, etc) where you could safely shoot 1/60s or slower and freeze the action. On top of that is the fact that a little camera shake will ruin your pictures and a little motion blur can be passed off as "artistic" .

Unless you are a professional photographer do yourself a favor and save $$$ and get a Canon 18-200mm zoom. That way you won't miss any shot.

Seriously why waste $ when for 99.98% of the photos the way people view them a sub $500 lens will do the job better because you don't have to switch lenses.

Again it "stats" people think they need the best when most people "need" the most versatile so they actually use the camera and don't miss important shots.

Quote from boltman2007 : Unless you are a professional photographer do yourself a favor and save $$$ and get a Canon 18-200mm zoom. That way you won't miss any shot. Seriously why waste $ when for 99.98% of the photos the way people view them a sub $500 lens will do the job better because you don't have to switch lenses. Again it "stats" people think they need the best when most people "need" the most versatile so they actually use the camera and don't miss important shots.

Seriously?

Quote from jdramirez : Seriously?

Yes... for most people that lens is more than enough. Canon's widest zoom range. It's not like it takes bad images. They are good to great quality and you save $$$.

Pretty much unless you are constantly blowing up photos the average person cannot tell the difference. With a higher zoom you can get more shots than by changing lenses.

Whatever its your money.... in the long run for most people looking a photos on a screensaver or whatever the difference in lens quality won't make any real perceptible difference. Having a wider zoom allows you to capture more shots.... and they look fine....amazing in fact. Without ever having to switch lenses at all.

Its all stats selling to professionals doing professional work...way overkill for the average Joe. In reality only you will know or notice the difference other people could care less.
People always "want" the best when in reality you don't "need" the best. A picture is picture for most people.

What is a shame is not having the right lens to get the shot..... fumbling with lenses.


See for yourself....

https://www.google.com/search?q=c...66&bih=667

The Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens offers a great focal length range and excellent image stabilization in a compact package. There are going to be a lot of people traveling with this lens. And at the same time, the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens as a kit or general purpose lens makes a lot of sense. The convenience value of this lens is very high.

Quote from boltman2007 : Yes...

for most people that lens is more than enough.

Evidently I don't consider myself to be most people.

Canon's widest zoom range. It's not like it takes bad images. They are good to great quality and you save $$$.

It's not about focal range, it is often about picture quality, sharpness, contrast, minimal color aberration while maintaining good color saturation, and about shooting while indoors in less than ideal light.

When you shoot at 200mm on a cropped sensor, the minimum shutterspeed should be 1/320th of a second. But with the aperture on the 18-200 at 5.6, I am getting 1/4th the amount of light as I would at f/2.8. That means blurring of my subject, that means, a lessor appealing bokeh, it means a crappy shot. It really does.

Canon makes nice lenses, I haven't disliked any of them. But it is an EF-S which means that it would be incompatible with a full frame camera if and when I decide to upgrade... which is more of a certainty since I will have a full complement of lenses and really can only upgrade the body as far as the next stage of hardware is concerned.

Money is important, and if I were saving 5000 when deciding between a Lexus and an Acura, I can see making a decision based upon the money. But you are suggesting that I opt for a hyundai without power windows and doors because it will still get me from point and to point b.



Pretty much unless you are constantly blowing up photos the average person cannot tell the difference. With a higher zoom you can get more shots than by changing lenses.

I don't blow up images, but I will crop images and I fully expect sharpness out of my subjects. It is important to me that I can see individual eyelashes... and while you may disagree that makes much of a difference, I find the added depth adds quite a bit to the image.

In the long run for most people looking a photos on a screensaver or whatever the difference in lens quality won't make any real perceptible difference. Having a wider zoom allows you to capture more shots.... and they look fine....amazing in fact. Without ever having to switch lenses at all.

I do have shots that cycle on my screen saver; I am not a professional. Though I don't see getting something that absolutely doesn't meet my needs.

Its all stats selling to professionals doing professional work...way overkill for the average Joe. In reality only you will know or notice the difference other people could care less.
People always "want" the best when in reality you don't "need" the best. A picture is picture for most people.

There is a dirty word within the photography community, pixel peeping. I acknowledge that quality of a shot isn't always viewed at 100%, but when you look at a shot, and you know that it is just a touch soft... and if it were sharper it would really pop...

I'm a mediocre photographer and I lose more shots than I want... but I hate when I have everything right - Iso, shutter speed, aperture, metering, etc., and I still wind up with a less than optimal shot because of my gear.

It is like studying for a test, knowing all the answers and still failing because your pencil broke and you weren't able to complete the test.

What is a shame is not having the right lens to get the shot..... fumbling with lenses.

I don't fumble with lenses. I think about the lighting of where I'm going... and I plan accordingly. I have my low light lens for that exact purpose and I have my walk around lens for other occasions, 24-105mm f/4L IS.

The Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens offers a great focal length range and excellent image stabilization in a compact package. There are going to be a lot of people traveling with this lens. And at the same time, the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens as a kit or general purpose lens makes a lot of sense. The convenience value of this lens is very high.

I appreciate that you were trying to help, but you are so far off base that I cannot legitimately take your suggestion seriously.

Quote from boltman2007 : Unless you are a professional photographer do yourself a favor and save $$$ and get a Canon 18-200mm zoom. That way you won't miss any shot. Seriously why waste $ when for 99.98% of the photos the way people view them a sub $500 lens will do the job better because you don't have to switch lenses. Again it "stats" people think they need the best when most people "need" the most versatile so they actually use the camera and don't miss important shots.

I have to pretty strongly disagree, While the 18-200 might be decent it's not really a comparison to the 70-200 in most ways. The optics on the 70-200 are so much better, very little distortion and CA. The 18-200 can't exactly say that. While these things can be fixed in software the biggest thing that the 70-200 has going for it is the 2.8 constant aperture. The OP hopes to possibly shoot indoor sports someday with this. Take it from someone with experience, you can't do this at 200mm at f5.6 even if you boost your ISO super high. You need the F 2.8 and high ISO. Almost all Gyms (or football fields at night) are much darker than they look to your eyes. To freeze the motion of the players, without flash (Prohibited in most venues for sports) than you need the light of 2.8F.

I would agree that the 18-200 is better for compact traveling when doing outdoor photography but having been in many dark churches of europe, that 2.8F is very valuable.

Quote from jdramirez : for most people that lens is more than enough. Evidently I don't consider myself to be most people. Canon's widest zoom range. It's not like it takes bad images. They are good to great quality and you save $$$. It's not about focal range, it is often about picture quality, sharpness, contrast, minimal color aberration while maintaining good color saturation, and about shooting while indoors in less than ideal light. When you shoot at 200mm on a cropped sensor, the minimum shutterspeed should be 1/320th of a second. But with the aperture on the 18-200 at 5.6, I am getting 1/4th the amount of light as I would at f/2.8. That means blurring of my subject, that means, a lessor appealing bokeh, it means a crappy shot. It really does. Canon makes nice lenses, I haven't disliked any of them. But it is an EF-S which means that it would be incompatible with a full frame camera if and when I decide to upgrade... which is more of a certainty since I will have a full complement of lenses and really can only upgrade the body as far as the next stage of hardware is concerned. Money is important, and if I were saving 5000 when deciding between a Lexus and an Acura, I can see making a decision based upon the money. But you are suggesting that I opt for a hyundai without power windows and doors because it will still get me from point and to point b. Pretty much unless you are constantly blowing up photos the average person cannot tell the difference. With a higher zoom you can get more shots than by changing lenses. I don't blow up images, but I will crop images and I fully expect sharpness out of my subjects. It is important to me that I can see individual eyelashes... and while you may disagree that makes much of a difference, I find the added depth adds quite a bit to the image. In the long run for most people looking a photos on a screensaver or whatever the difference in lens quality won't make any real perceptible difference. Having a wider zoom allows you to capture more shots.... and they look fine....amazing in fact. Without ever having to switch lenses at all. I do have shots that cycle on my screen saver; I am not a professional. Though I don't see getting something that absolutely doesn't meet my needs. Its all stats selling to professionals doing professional work...way overkill for the average Joe. In reality only you will know or notice the difference other people could care less. People always "want" the best when in reality you don't "need" the best. A picture is picture for most people. There is a dirty word within the photography community, pixel peeping. I acknowledge that quality of a shot isn't always viewed at 100%, but when you look at a shot, and you know that it is just a touch soft... and if it were sharper it would really pop... I'm a mediocre photographer and I lose more shots than I want... but I hate when I have everything right - Iso, shutter speed, aperture, metering, etc., and I still wind up with a less than optimal shot because of my gear. It is like studying for a test, knowing all the answers and still failing because your pencil broke and you weren't able to complete the test. What is a shame is not having the right lens to get the shot..... fumbling with lenses. I don't fumble with lenses. I think about the lighting of where I'm going... and I plan accordingly. I have my low light lens for that exact purpose and I have my walk around lens for other occasions, 24-105mm f/4L IS. The Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens offers a great focal length range and excellent image stabilization in a compact package. There are going to be a lot of people traveling with this lens. And at the same time, the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens as a kit or general purpose lens makes a lot of sense. The convenience value of this lens is very high. I appreciate that you were trying to help, but you are so far off base that I cannot legitimately take your suggestion seriously.

OP...obviously you have done research and read reviews..... I'll concede the "Light collecting" ability in rare cases. Other than that you lens wont make an iota of difference to the people who view your photos unless you are publishing them in a photography website with photo experts.

I can ZOOM and crop in on individual eyelashes. What you actually gain is minimal and mostly just a way to convince average photographers to waste money on multiple lenses that you need to plan and switch.... also increasing the chance you add dirt to your system.

Whatever... you do what you want. You should try the lens I am recommending and see for yourself.... I know the strong urge to spend money "because" its the best. In reality the average person never really needs the best and the difference between best and second best is minimal.

The human eye can only see so much.... that's why I also laugh at monitor resolution claims.

I'll bet that if you and I took photos with our respective gear.... we would get similar accolades. Or mine would be better because most photos you take in daylight and I could capture more shots.

Seriously... what happens when some awesome (limited time) shot comes up and you have the wrong lens on? Answer YOU MISS IT.

Oh you might capture once in a great while a shot someone can tell a very slight difference... but the chance that it is even enough to comment on is about ZERO.

Quote from boltman2007 : OP...

obviously you have done research and read reviews..... I'll concede the "Light collecting" ability in rare cases.

Rare? Do you have a daughter or friends with daughters. In the past few years, I have attended (and unsuccessfully photographed to a limited extent) recorder concerts, indoor plays, ballets, first communions, holiday parties inside the classroom, brownie step up events which took place indoors. this isn't the 1800's where almost everything out side of sleeping and eating took place outdoors.

Other than that you lens wont make an iota of difference to the people who view your photos unless you are publishing them in a photography website with photo experts.

Those who view my photographs are in awe with delight and amazement. I do a good job of composition and simply knowing when to hit the shutter button. I'm not picasso... the equipment does most of the work for me, but I do take pride in the ability to see a subject and its orientation in regards to the back/foreground and to shoot accordingly. There is a certain level of skill, and the lens won't make a difference, but being able to attain the proper shutter speed while minimizing the graininess from the ISO... I'm getting off track with this argument.

I can ZOOM and crop in on individual eyelashes. What you actually gain is minimal and mostly just a way to convince average photographers to waste money on multiple lenses that you need to plan and switch.... also increasing the chance you add dirt to your system.

I find it difficult to talk to you... I'm glad you can see the blurry eyelashes and you find that satisfactory.

Whatever... you do what you want. You should try the lens I am recommending and see for yourself.... I know the strong urge to spend money "because" its the best. In reality the average person never raelly needs the best and the difference between best and second best is minimal.

Yes, the 2nd best. The 18-200 is probably the 23rd best... and there is a WIDE gap between 12th and 13th. And I'm quite confident I will stick with my 24-105mm f/4L and not even consider the 18-200. Take away the money... and you find me one person who would even consider the 18-200 and its 2x focal length over the 24-105.

The human eye can only see so much.... that's why I also laugh at monitor resolution claims.

The human eye can see much more than you are giving credit for. Yes the brain does gloss over some of the detail, but it is still there and quite visible if you opt to look at it.

I'll bet that if you and I took photos with our respective gear.... we would get similar accolades. Or mine would be better because most photos you take in daylight and I could capture more shots.

I have no clue what you were trying to say there at the end. But you are probably right, presuming the judges were blind. Maybe just visually impaired.

I say wait for the 70-200mm 2.8L IS III

it'll be the new bestest most expensive top of the line zoom oem lens.