70-200mm for Canon 5D

[cteagles]

Ok, so i'm looking to buy a new lens I shoot with a 5D mk2 and I am looking at 70-200mm I mainly shoot cars (usually ones that are not moving) And from my research i have found the 3 possible lenses I would consider:

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 - £370 (used)
Canon 70-200mm F4 L Non IS -£400 (used)
Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L Non IS -£800 (used)

Now I have excluded the IS versions of the canon lenses as I don't think IS is something I need. The sigma is clearly the best option price wise and is half the price of the Canon 2.8 however is it optically good enough? I would love to hear what you would pick and why and any personal experience you have with any of these lenses

Thanks,

Chris

[markmullen]

Be aware that the IS versions are the weather sealed ones, if you need to keep shooting in poor weather, and plan to get a weather sealed body, then you need the IS versions.

[cteagles]

Mark, Thanks for that - I didn't realise the non IS versions didn't have weather sealing, I just assumed they would be. I will bear that in mind!

[rich83]

Canon 70-200 F4 IS..... thats the sharpest of the 70-200 bunch. (with maybe an exception being the new 2.8 IS)

[Mr Will]

cteagles said:

Ok, so i'm looking to buy a new lens I shoot with a 5D mk2 and I am looking at 70-200mm I mainly shoot cars (usually ones that are not moving) And from my research i have found the 3 possible lenses I would consider:

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 - £370 (used)
Canon 70-200mm F4 L Non IS -£400 (used)
Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L Non IS -£800 (used)

Now I have excluded the IS versions of the canon lenses as I don't think IS is something I need. The sigma is clearly the best option price wise and is half the price of the Canon 2.8 however is it optically good enough? I would love to hear what you would pick and why and any personal experience you have with any of these lenses

I'd add the IS versions back in personally, it's usefulness goes up rapidly as the focal length increases and I think if I was shooting static cars I'd want the option to use speeds of less than 1/250 without a tripod. The f4 IS is also a completely different and sharper lens than the non-IS (IIRC).

Apart from that it's a question of price and portability - the f4 versions are significantly smaller and lighter which may play in their favour.

[RobbieKB]

I picked a Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS on the cheap from a chap with a bit too much money I suspect and it's now a staple lens in my kit. The guy threw in a 1.4x teleconverter and with that it really covers a lot of ground. I've used it for portaits, landscapes, wildlife and motorsport.

It's a very sharp lens, as Rich said above. As you're looking at taking pictures of cars with it, here's an event I covered (Motorsport at the Palace) a few weeks ago almost exclusively with the 70-200mm. The only shots not taken with it are the ones in the forest taken with a UWA which may or may not have worked.

ETA: I use it on a 5D II

[PBLP]

cteagles said:

Canon 70-200mm F4 L Non IS -£400 (used)

I just paid £305 for a used one, and one just sold on talkphotography for £310

Very happy with the quality it produces too

[revrange]

RobbieKB said:

I picked a Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS on the cheap from a chap with a bit too much money I suspect and it's now a staple lens in my kit. The guy threw in a 1.4x teleconverter and with that it really covers a lot of ground. I've used it for portaits, landscapes, wildlife and motorsport.

It's a very sharp lens, as Rich said above. As you're looking at taking pictures of cars with it, here's an event I covered (Motorsport at the Palace) a few weeks ago almost exclusively with the 70-200mm. The only shots not taken with it are the ones in the forest taken with a UWA which may or may not have worked.

ETA: I use it on a 5D II

Nice shots, and the bokeh is good for an F4.

[cteagles]

Thank you all for your help - I may be holding out for an IS version of the F4 I think!

Interestingly no one has mentioned the Sigma; I assume this is because it does not stand up to either of the Canons?

[JulianHJ]

I think that much like the 17-40L, the Canon offerings are of such high quality for such reasonable outlay that the third party options don't get much of a look in.

[jon-]

[redacted]

[RobDickinson]

Sigma have a bunch of 70-200 variants, the latest is a decent comparison to canons older 2.8 is. But I would go for a canon, they are just so good

[tog]

jon- said:

Pft.

100 f2.8 L
135 f2.8 L
200 f2.8 L

Forget practicality, primes are even sharper.

The 135 f2L is wonderful. Small, light, fast, sharp, and cheaper than a 2.8 zoom. I generally use it in preference to my 70-200 2.8IS, unless I really need the length or flexibility.

[cteagles]

Seriously considering the 135 F2 however the sensible part of me is screaming no; its not as flexible has no IS and no weather sealing and for that one extra stop!? is it worth it. I have seen images taken with a 135 and they are awesome - incredibly sharp and beautiful depth of field. But right now a 70-200 F4 IS is looking like a sensible option. Thanks again for your input guys!

[jon-]

I already have a 100 2.8 so as much as I'd love the 135, there's little point.

The 200 though... Hmmm. There's a 200 2.0 too, but that's serious money.

I'm a prime geek. I have the 28-105 f4 and hate the quality after using primes for so long, and that's meant to be a good zoom

[The Moose]

I must say, I've not found the 70-200 is long enough zoom on a full frame camera. 100-400 for my 5D to get the zoom distance.