Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2008 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

A young friend (young enough to be my kid, I mean) asked me about the pros and cons of the four 70-200 Canon lenses, so I’m compiling a list for him.

What would YOU tell him? Is there another list somewhere I should point him to?

First, among the “Pros” and “Cons” that I have not listed:

1. Image quality – It’s been my observation that “sample variation” (in addition of course to user skill and conditions under which the lens is used) plays a bigger role in “IQ” than any inherent design differences between the four. I’ve owned three of the four versions below, and I consistently see threads and online test reports that both corroborate and refute my own experiences about “which is sharpest.” There is no clear consensus.

What is clear is that some examples of each version are MORE sharp than other copies of that version and the other three versions, and some examples of each version are LESS sharp than other copies of that version and the other three versions. Those who have had “a good copy” or “a bad copy” can (and will) disagree, but I don’t know anyone who has tested enough copies of all four lenses to definitively declare that one version is sharper than the others. Evidence to the contrary – i.e., extensive tests under the same conditions of multiple copies of all four lenses that show a clear and consistent winner – is welcome. (Of course, if there was “a clear and consistent” IQ winner, we’d have nothing to talk about here!)

MY ADVICE: “Unless you can compare multiple copies of the same version, and then compare the sharpest of those, under the same conditions, to various samples of other versions, the difference in image quality isn’t great enough to make that a deciding factor in which of the four versions to buy.”

2. All four lenses are white – It seems that as many photographers dislike this (or say they do) as like it, but rather than listing it as both a “pro” and a “con,” since all four of them are white (grayish-beige, really) I didn’t list it.

3. All four lenses are “L” lenses – I suppose that’s in their favor compared to many non-L lenses, but since they’re all “L’s” (and since I think too many newbies are schooled to expect an unrealistic OMG revelation when using an “L” vs. a non-“L”), I didn’t list it among the pros and cons.

4. Minimum focus distance – All four range from 3.9 feet to 4.9 feet, not a difference I felt significant enough to list.

5. Resale value – All four seem to hold about the same relative value, percentage-wise.

-------------------------------

70-200 f4 non-IS pros:

• Price (cheapest of the four lenses)
• Lighter weight than 2.8 versions
• Smaller size than 2.8’s
• Doesn’t need a tripod collar as much as heavier lens does
• Takes 67mm filters (slightly cheaper than the 2.8 lenses' 77mm filters)

70-200 f4 non-IS cons:

• No Image Stabilization
• 1 stop slower than f 2.8 versions (impacts action photography, bokeh, subject isolation, viewfinder brightness, and focusing with teleconverter attached)
• No tripod collar supplied, so balance/weight issues aside, flipping to vertical not as easy
• 67mm filters don't fit numerous wider "L" zooms (listed below)

70-200 f4 IS pros:

• Price (costs less than both 2.8 models)
• Image Stabilization (lens has Canon's newest version of IS, with an apparent 4-stop advantage over a non-IS lens, compared to the 2.8 lens' previous-generation IS with a 3-stop advantage over a non-IS lens)
• Lighter weight than 2.8 versions
• Smaller size than 2.8’s
• Doesn’t need a tripod collar as much as heavier lens does
• Takes 67mm filters (slightly cheaper than the 2.8 lenses' 77mm filters)

70-200 f4 IS cons:

• Price (costs significantly more than non-IS f4 version above)
• 1 stop slower than f2.8 versions (impacts action photography, bokeh, subject isolation, viewfinder brightness, and focusing with teleconverter attached)
• No tripod collar supplied, so balance/weight issues aside, flipping to vertical not as easy
• 67mm filters don't fit numerous wider "L" zooms (listed below under "pros")

70-200 f2.8 non-IS pros:

• Price (costs less than 2.8/IS, though more than both f4 versions)
• One stop faster than f/4 versions (advantage for action photography, bokeh, subject isolation, viewfinder brightness, optimizing AF performance, and focusing with teleconverter attached)
• Supplied with tripod collar, helping with both balance/weight and flipping to vertical
77mm filters also fit 24-70L, 28-70L, 17-35L, 17-40L, MkI 16-35L

70-200 f2.8 non-IS cons:

• Price: Second most-expensive of the four versions
• Heavier than both f4 versions
• Larger than both f4 versions
• No Image Stabilization
• 77mm filters cost slightly more than f4 versions' 67mm; 77mm filters don't fit 16-35L MkII (which uniquely uses 82mm filters)

70-200 f2.8 IS pros:

• Image Stabilization (Note: has one-generation-earlier version IS than f4 70-200/IS lens [above]; the f2.8 IS lens offers an apparent 3-stop advantage compared to a non-IS lens, while the f4 IS lens offers an apparent 4-stop advantage compared to a non-IS lens)
• One stop faster than f/4 versions (advantage for action photography, bokeh, subject isolation, viewfinder brightness, optimizing AF performance, and focusing with teleconverter attached)
• Supplied with tripod collar, helping with both balance/weight and flipping to vertical
77mm filters also fit 24-70L, 28-70L, 17-35L, 17-40L, MkI 16-35L

70-200 f2.8 IS cons:

• Price (most expensive of the four versions)
• Heavier than both f4 versions
• Larger than both f4 versions
• 77mm filters cost slightly more than f4 versions' 67mm; 77mm filters don't fit 16-35L MkII (which uniquely uses 82mm filters)

I obviously can edit this to incorporate other pros and cons, as persuaded by others.

Again, I am not going to list IQ (not even "Some say this version is sharper/less sharp than the others," because I'd have to say that about all four!).

Edited by RalphJ on Apr 05, 2008 at 04:55 AM GMT (Reason: Explained four "impacts" of different maximum apertures)

Edited by RalphJ on Apr 05, 2008 at 05:25 AM GMT (Reason: Explained advantages/disadvantages of 67mm/77mm filters)

Edited by RalphJ on Apr 05, 2008 at 06:08 AM GMT (Reason: Clarified 4-stop IS in f4 lens vs. 3-stop [previous-gen] IS in f2.8 lens)

Edited by RalphJ on Apr 05, 2008 at 06:24 AM GMT (Reason: Added bullets for readability, added "focusing with teleconverter attached")

Edited by RalphJ on Apr 06, 2008 at 10:29 AM GMT (Reason: Added "optimizing AF performance" to "pros" of f2.8 versions)

Edited on Apr 06, 2008 at 04:29 PM

Apr 05, 2008 at 10:28 AM

knweiss
Online
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

The one stop advantage and the bokeh that comes with it (which you can't compensate by bumping the iso setting on the f4) was the reason for me to get the f2.8 IS.

I am very happy with it but it definitely is a heavy piece and you probably still desire a lighter lens for the times when you want to go out with the small+light camera bag.

Apr 05, 2008 at 10:44 AM

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

Hmm. Bokeh. Good point; I think I'll add it to the list now.

Apr 05, 2008 at 10:47 AM

Karl Goosen
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

I own the F2.8 IS version. I don't care if it's white or black ..altough it gets less hot in warm weather then other lenses but that's all.
The only thing I like less is it's weight. It's indeed a heavy thign to use a whole day. On the other hand it has also an advantage. It feels well balanced in my hand when I take pictures.

Apr 05, 2008 at 10:53 AM

knweiss
Online
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

Let me add a comment regarding the larger f2.8 filter size. IMHO this is an advantage because the 77mm size is very common on Canon's fast L lenses. E.g. Canon's three main fast zoom lenses 16-35/2.8 MarkI, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS all have the 77mm size . Nowadays, of course, the 16-35 MarkII is unfortunately a notable exception.

Edited on Apr 05, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Apr 05, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Daan B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

Maybe it is a good idea to take the following questions into mind when comparing these lenses for your friend:

1) What will be the main objects/subjects of photography (people, landscapes, products, pets, wildlife, events)?
2) What is the personal shooting style of the young photog (up-close, candid, fast-paced, tripod, distant, stealthy)?
3) Where will the lens be used mostly (studio, travel, outside, inside, etc)?
4) To what purpose will the lens be used (small or large prints, publication on internet or in magazines/newspapers, etc)

Edited on Apr 05, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Apr 05, 2008 at 11:02 AM

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

knweiss wrote: IMHO the larger filter size is an advantage because the 77mm size is very common on Canon's fast L lenses. E.g. Canon's three main fast zoom lenses 16-35/2.8 MarkI, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS all have the 77mm size . Nowadays, of course, the 16-35 MarkII is unfortunately a notable exception.

Hmm. Also a good point. I'll try to integrate it, but the MkII exception complicates it a bit.

Apr 05, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

One thing that might also be added. The f/4 IS version has the newest and somewhat more effective image stabilizer than the f/2.8 IS version.

Apr 05, 2008 at 11:21 AM

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

Steve Spencer wrote: The f/4 IS version has the newest and somewhat more effective image stabilizer than the f/2.8 IS version.

Another good point, and I should add it if it works as claimed. Does Canon claim a 1-stop advantage over the earlier generation IS? Do most users/testers agree with that claim?

Apr 05, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Savas K
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

Ralph, I have been going through the same thought process and finally decided to rent two versions of this lens series in order to break the analysis paralysis, which had been made worse by including equivalent primes and use of TCs. And then when it came to weight, the idea of getting more reach per pound, choosing a different lens altogether. I've got dense writings, charts, excel worksheet lists, printed reviews, - sort of like that guy Nash in A Beautiful Mind - ready to have myself committed. One of the bottom line concepts is having a specific need in mind to help narrow down the choice.

Apr 05, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

RalphJ wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote: The f/4 IS version has the newest and somewhat more effective image stabilizer than the f/2.8 IS version.

Another good point, and I should add it if it works as claimed. Does Canon claim a 1-stop advantage over the earlier generation IS? Do most users/testers agree with that claim?

Canon does claim a 1-stop advantage over the earlier generation IS (4-stops vs. 3-stops) and I find I do get 4-stops with the f/4 IS lens.

Edited on Apr 05, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Apr 05, 2008 at 11:52 AM

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

Steve Spencer wrote: Canon does claim a 1-stop advantage over the earlier generation IS (4-stops vs. 3-stops) and I find I do get 4-stops with the f/4 IS lens.

Got it, and will edit accordingly. Thanks.

Apr 05, 2008 at 11:59 AM

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

Savas K wrote: One of the bottom line concepts is having a specific need in mind to help narrow down the choice.

I agree with you, and I particularly appreciated Daan B's remarks, some or all of which I may eventually append to original post:

Daan B wrote:
Maybe it is a good idea to take the following questions into mind when comparing these lenses:

1) What will be the main objects/subjects of photography (people, landscapes, products, pets, wildlife, events)?
2) What is the personal shooting style of the photographer (up-close, candid, fast-paced, tripod, distant, stealthy)?
3) Where will the lens be used mostly (studio, travel, outside, inside, etc)?
4) To what purpose will the lens be used (small or large prints, publication on internet or in magazines/newspapers, etc)

Apr 05, 2008 at 12:11 PM

mfurman
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

My own tests were limited to three copies of 70-200 f/4.0 L IS and two copies of 70-200 f/2.8 L IS - I can say that the new 70-200 f/4.0 IS L is definitely sharper wide open. As a matter of fact, I have not seen a test which would not find it sharper than f/2.8 IS.
I also find that the difference of minimum focusing distance (1.2 m vs 1.4m) is important although 70-200 f 4.0 L IS cannot really focus that close at 200mm without losing its sharpness so maximum magnification of 0.21 is overstated.
I think that the biggest problem with any f/4.0 (maximum aperture) lens is that the focus is potentially less accurate on a non 1D series body.

Edited on Apr 05, 2008 at 01:43 PM

Apr 05, 2008 at 12:52 PM

danmitchell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

Well, OK, though you might be over-thinking this a bit. :-)

First, your point that all four Canon 70-200mm L zooms produce excellent image quality is right on. I like to say that trying to choose between them on the basis of image quality is like trying to choose between a dollar bill and four quarters on the basis of value.

It is really about finding the one whose features best fit your needs, and in some cases, your budget.

You can apply some basis assumptions that work for lenses in general to your consideration:

1. If you mostly shoot from a tripod the f/2.8 aperture will likely have little value to you, especially if you are a landscape sort of person. (If you are big on narrow DOF you'll probably want primes for that.)

2. If you mostly shoot highly active subjects using high shutter speeds, IS will have little value to you. The f/2.8 aperture may have value to you since it gives you one stop of faster shutter speed, but you generally don't want to shoot this stuff wide open anyway.

3. If you shoot handheld in low light and subject motion is less of a problem than camera shake then IS is invaluable.

4. If the weight/size of the gear make a difference to you (e.g - backpacking, less need for tripod collar, etc.) you might prefer the f/4 lenses.

5. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS gets you the most versatility, but at the expense of size, weight, and cost.

Apr 05, 2008 at 03:03 PM

Daan B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

mfurman wrote:
I also find that the difference of minimum focusing distance (1.2 m vs 1.4m) is important although 70-200 f 4.0 L IS cannot really focus that close at 200mm without losing its sharpness so maximum magnification of 0.21 is overstated.

Don't the other 70-200mm's suffer too from the decrease in sharpness when shooting at 200mm MFD? I thought I had read people reporting the same "issue" when uising their f4 non-IS versions. I do agree that the promised 0.21x magnification is a bit overrated. This is not a lens that can be used as a macro, nor was it intended to be.

I think that the biggest problem with any f/4.0 (maximum aperture) lens is that the focus is potentially less accurate on a non 1D series body.

Not to start an argument, but I have exactly the opposite experience. On my 5D's the 70-200mm f/4 IS is the most accurate and consistent focusing of all the lenses I own. For comparison my short tele L primes are the least accurate and consistent focusing lenses. Don't know what that means though.

Edited on Apr 05, 2008 at 03:44 PM

Apr 05, 2008 at 03:42 PM

Canon 10D
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

I would add the followings, which many people don't know:

1. 2.8 vs. 4.0: 2.8 gives more cross-typed AF points in 1-series cameras, hence translates into better AF accuracy and speed or performance.

2. IS vs. non-IS for the 2.8: the AF performance in the IS version is almost twice as fast as the non-IS.

Both straight from Canon's mouth

Edited on Apr 05, 2008 at 04:06 PM

Apr 05, 2008 at 04:03 PM

borderlight
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

RalphJ said:

A young friend (young enough to be my kid, I mean) asked me about the pros and cons of the four 70-200 Canon lenses, so I’m compiling a list for him.
What would YOU tell him? Is there another list somewhere I should point him to?

Beyond what you offered, I would tell him to do his own homework if he is old enough to buy or use any of the 70-200 lenses.

Apr 05, 2008 at 04:17 PM

ShaneEngelking
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

If i didn't get the 70-200 2.8 IS rather than one of the others, i think I would have regretted it. but that is because i often am shooting at llike 1/60, 1600 ISO, 200mm and f/2.8. I don't know if it is just my copy, but from 160-200mm mine is notably sharper at f/3.2 than at 2.8, and with practically the same bokeh. i find myself leavinmg it at this aperture until i really need the extra third of a stop. But as far as lens choices, it all depends on what you need it for, but only one of them gives you all the options afforded to you. the IQ difference is not nearly large enough IMO for you to base your decision on, because they are all excellent. But the best AF belongs to the 2.8 IS.

Apr 05, 2008 at 06:08 PM

Dreamliner
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · Summarizing 70-200 pros and cons

Regarding the gray/white colour of the four versions: it has to do with esthetics when they are used with Canon's extenders. In the case of the f/4 versions maybe it's a necessity because of the use of CAF2 which is more thermal sensitive and therefore sometimes -according to optical theory- can affect focussing by altering the lens refractive index. Also CAF2 is more fragile and expensive compared to UD glass and cost/final product pricing/final product abuse by pros reasons probably played their role in the absence of this material from the f/2,8 versions. That said, I've never heard of a case of fluorite cracking on a lens.
In my case, I've chosen the f/2,8 non IS because of several reasons noted above plus I've tested enough 70-200's to conclude that it's slightly more sharp compared to the IS version. I'm also not convinced by the reliability of the IS systems because I've seen three of them failing. Having said all that, I must admit that I 'm tempted by the two f/4 versions -especialy the IS.

Apr 06, 2008 at 07:45 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end