70-200 lens

john1963

hi folks,
i have the canon 70-200 l f4 lens(non is). i want to upgrade to a faster lens. the f2.8 is affordable but the IS version is expensive. would the 2.8 give me the sharp photos i would like? or should i try for the IS version should i consider the sigma 2.8, seems to be about 700 and i would hope to get 450 or so for my canon. i would love to hear opinions
thanks

daycent

Hi John,

Apparently the lens you have is the sharpest of the Canon 70-200's, as in, sharper than the 2.8 versions. If you are getting the 2.8 version, IS can be very handy if it will be used as a general purpose lens. If you are a sports shooter, the IS isn't as important, as you will tend to be shooting at high shutter speeds anyway.

And as for sharp shots, not trying to be smart, but technique is the most important aspect. And post processing skills of course

john1963

i must be doing something wrong then, often my photos are not as sharp as i woudl like, i thought faster shutter speed would do the job

Borderfox

I have the IS and find its great for anything low light, I can shoot static subjects as low as 1/15th of a second if I have only one coffee I had the Sigma version (non IS) and that was a superb lens

oshead

A combination of careful focus, shutter speed to the length of zoom and how you hold the camera. That's how to get sharp images. After that you can do a little bit of post processing to sharpen even more. Do you have any examples of a typical image you are not happy with?

jonboy74

What are you shooting? Still images in lower light where IS would come in handy, or things in motion? If you're not shooting moving targets I'd definitely go for the F/4 IS, it has great reviews and is an excellent lens.

Thecageyone

Been eying the sigma for a while. There's a newer version with OS, but it's more than double the price! Please tell me there's a lot more to it than just the addition of OS!?

Being a 2.8 I figured you should easily get away with 1/200+ in average lighting by bumping the ISO a tad. I've pretty steady hands though, used a few zooms without IS/OS and got good shots. They were cheap lightweight ones though.

FoxT

I have an f/2.8 non-IS myself & am happy with it. I have sharper lenses but I have very few shots from the 2.8 that are spoiled for want of sharpness.

If I was in your position I'd consider getting a used f/2.8 non-IS - it will be an upgrade from the f/4, and you can always trade up again without losing much - these lenses seem to hold their value well.

- FoxT

pete4130

Please don't buy the sigma 70-200 2.8. As I've said before I had one from new for about a week before I sold it. Not sharp, poor AF, lack of cntrast and colour rendition.

Granted I might have gotten a bad copy but when paying E800-900 for a lens I don't think its a good gamble to hope you get a good copy.

I've got the Nikon 80-200 2.8 second hand and it is far superior. I've shot gigs at 200mm at 1/50th and got sharp results.

Thecageyone

pete4130 wrote: »

Please don't buy the sigma 70-200 2.8. As I've said before I had one from new for about a week before I sold it. Not sharp, poor AF, lack of cntrast and colour rendition.

Granted I might have gotten a bad copy but when paying E800-900 for a lens I don't think its a good gamble to hope you get a good copy.

I've got the Nikon 80-200 2.8 second hand and it is far superior. I've shot gigs at 200mm at 1/50th and got sharp results.

That's worrying alright, chances of getting a bad copy. Call me a n00b [many do] but how do you know when you have a bad copy?, I mean, how long does it take to register? Do you get some alright images and think it might be you? then when it doesn't improve ...? I often wonder this when I see people mention bad copies. I could have one for all I know [re other lenses] because I do find I battle with them at times.

I have read some good things about the sigma though. It's supposedly a great alternative to the overly expensive Nikon [well, anything over a grand is way over priced far as I'm concerned]

pete4130

Mine was just crap. Images were flat, dull, poorly focused, no contrast and not sharp. I sold it and got a Nikon 70-300 VR for the interim before I got the 80-200 and the 70-300 was better in every respect bar not being a fixed 2.8 but it had VR so it coped and gave good results.

EDIT: one exmple was daytime at howth, 5.6, 1/500th+ shutter, 200mm on a D200 and it was soft, poor contrast, not focused properly etc.... and I thought I was doing something wrong.

squareballoon

I have the 70-200 2.8L non IS and I find it really sharp. I really love this lens for outdoor shoots. Ok so it's sharper if I use my monopod but I've always been very happy with the results.
Here are a couple of fairly typical shots to show what I usually get. Both sooc taken at 2.8 and hand held on my 5D classic.

100%



100%

ThOnda

70-200/2.8 L IS II is sharp as hell! 1/15s handheld, when you make it. Amazing piece of engineering. However it is not wide open all the time, so on f4, you can count hairs in people's ears.

DaireQuinlan

Honestly, if the OP is currently unable to get satisfactorily 'sharp' images from a lens that's reputedly one of the sharpest in canon's zoom lineup then advising the purchase of MOAR GEAR I don't think is the right approach. Learning good handholding technique and how to work best with your AF system would pay dividends, as well as perhaps investing in a monopod or tripod.

chisel

If you really do want the bigger aperature then you could go the route I went. I did a straigt swap with a guy on adverts, my f4l for his sigma 2.8. Non is, and they both make the same money 2nd hand. He sent me some recent pics so I knew it was Sharp (i did the same for him). It's not a lens I use a lot, but it takes a bit of getting used to cos of the weight and size.

On the subject of shake with your current lens, if that's because you are forced to longer shutters then fair enough.

Effects

Thecageyone wrote: »

That's worrying alright, chances of getting a bad copy. Call me a n00b [many do] but how do you know when you have a bad copy?, I mean, how long does it take to register?

I got a Canon 50mm 1.4 and I thought it just focused really badly so didn't use it that much. I had it about 10 months when it totally stopped focusing. Luckily I had bought it in Gunns and they had a record of it in their book so I had it repaired under warranty.

Borderfox

I have had a ton of Sigma gear and never had a bad copy

The Snipe

If your selling that lens that you have at the moment, give me a buzz I'm looking for one! :P