Lens choice

[tomwhite1]

I know you have recently commented on this, but I can't find the comment.

Confused by all the canon 70-200 IS choices, and have read your thoughts on the f4. I know that's a fav.
Have been using a 30D but thinking of upgrading to a 7D. It seems to offer significant improvements, and I really appreciate the fact that you have published a "users guide".

For nature and wildlife use mainly, why would I choose either the f4 or the f2.8 older or new IS lens. The IS feature is really appreciated by this "getting shakier but more experienced by the year" 72 year old!

I really appreciate your recent blogs on the Galopagos trip. I visited the islands several years ago and was hungry for photo tips, what to take, what to look for, and how to best capture the wonderful wildlife of those islands. If I'd have just waited until this year, I would have really gotten a much better value from your trip, I am sure.:(

(This is a repeat of an email to birdsasart@att.net)


Tom White
Seattle

[Doug Brown]

Hi Tom. If your hands are getting shaky, you'll appreciate IS when you look through the viewfinder. If you want good Canon glass, that puts you into either the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (either the old or the new version). The 70-200 f/4 IS is a great lens; very sharp and very lightweight. You lose a stop of speed compared to the f/2.8, and that's a consideration if you're planning on shooting in low light. Unless you have a pro body, you'll only get satisfactory AF with a 1.4x TC. If you need more reach and want to add a 2x into the mix, I'd recommend the f/2.8 variant. Of course it's considerably heavier than the f/4 lens (about twice the weight). Comparing the old and new f/2.8 lenses, the new one costs about $400 more than the old one (which is still for sale at places like B&H). The new version is very highly regarded; here's a link to DP Review's take on it. I personally sold the old f/2.8 and bought the f/4 lens because I didn't want all the extra weight and I don't generally need the extra stop of light. But if you're looking for maximum versatility and excellent image quality, go with the new f/2.8 lens.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Tom, if you are "getting on a bit" I don't think the weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 would be great for you, the f/4 IS is a featherweight, weathersealed, and every bit as sharp as the 2.8s an its IS is superb.

[Robert Amoruso]

Tom,

Bottom line on the f/2.8 vs. the f/4 is you do not need the extra stop of light it is not worth the weight.

I sold a f/2.8 IS when the f/4 IS came out and never looked back and never missed to extra stop of light.

The f/2.8 appeals to photojournalists, concert and sports shooters that need the extra stop for indoor photography.

[tomwhite1]

Thank you all 3 for your helpful answers. I'm leaning towards the "max versitility and Image quality" comment from Doug.:confused:

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Thank you all 3 for your helpful answers. I'm leaning towards the "max versitility and Image quality" comment from Doug.

Quality wise you certainly won't be disappointed, however as I can attest to, shoulder surgery at any age is a real test of your ability to endure pain and at your age the healing process may be longer than you have left. :) :)

Whatever, have fun and shoot away.