Telephoto recommendation for Hobbyist

[Cadnium]

Hi all,

I am chasing some advice from the many people that use the Canon 70-200mm zooms. I have been going round in circles looking at the F/4 IS, F/2.8 and F/2.8IS-II and trying to work out what I should get and what is affordable.

I currently have a 15-85mm and 50mm/1.8. I have generally been stuck to indoor photos (due to new bub) but want to branch out to take a lot more stuff outdoors, down the beach etc. As the bub grows up there is obviously going to be a lot more need for a telephoto when down the park etc.

The 70-200mm range seems to be a really good fit to go with my current equipment.

Up until last week I was 100% set on the F/4 IS. My parents live in Singapore and I can get a good price from a local shop there.

Then I borrowed a friends 70-200mm F/2.8 IS and it is an awesome piece of kit. I find the flaring quite bad, but otherwise couldn't fault it. Even in average outdoor light I could get shutter speeds fast enough to not require IS. The bokeh at F/4 is almost as good as F/2.8 and for my uses not worth the extra $1k. However as soon as you step indoors it is another ball-game and you absolutely need IS or a tripod.

As you all probably know, the F/4IS and F/2.8 are comparable in price, but the F/2.8IS-II is double the cost. I am not convinced as a hobbyist that is new to the game I can justify throwing this amount down on a lens, and if I decide that is what I need I will probably wait for the price to come down (if it ever does?).

What I am after is some advice in the following realms:
> For people with the F/4IS, what situations do you find yourself wanting the extra stop?

> For people with the F/2.8, what situations do you find yourself wanting IS or needing a tripod?

> For the price, I could get either the F/4IS or F/2.8 and an 85mm 1.8 prime at a later date for indoor sports/portraiture. Is this a better all-round option, or am I skimping in the wrong place and should just save for the 2.8IS?

Some real-world experience would be helpful as reading all the reviews just confuses me, as they are generally written by serious photographers who obviously like and use the best of the best.

[soulman]

I have the f4 IS and don't find myself ever wishing I had the 2.8, though I have often been glad I have the much smaller and lighter f4. That said, I don't tend to use it for portraiture and don't think I've ever used it inside. Even on a full frame body and at 70mm, you have to be quite a way from your subject. I would recommend the f4 IS and a fast prime like the 85 f1.8 if you like the look of the latter. For low light work I use a 50 f1.4 and the high ISO abilities of a 5D11, which allow me to shoot in pretty much any kind of light. I prefer getting close to my subjects anyway - it feels more intimate than with a tele.

[Roosta]

Hi, have the F2.8 L non is, neaver needed it, chase the kids, two boys 7 and 4, no worries. My older son plays rugby, I don't have problem with flaring, use gen lens hood, filters if required CPL (They cost a bucket), have used it for some stills with no problems, It's alot heaver than the F4, but I went for the F2.8 due to fact I was able to get a Teleconvertor 1.4 at the same time. Gives me 280mm at F4, no worries. If you are going to shot lowlight the F2.8 would be handy, I shoot sunsets here in WA, sit it on my tripod and use 2sec delay or my remote shutter release, even used it for some longer exposure work.

Love it. Hardy ever off my camera. IF only I could have afforded the 30-200, now thats a different story.

[Cadnium]

Thanks for the info guys.

Soulman,
If you don't ever use it inside, do you ever find your shutter speed requiring IS outdoors? My testing with my friends lens even near sunset i was getting reasonable shutter speeds. Once the sun was down it was a different stroy.

Roosta,
I assume you mean that you never need the IS. If you are shooting indoors what do you do - assume you use your 18-50/f2.8 Sigma which would be quick enough handheld? (i use a rule of thumb of 1/80s for shooting indoors which is pretty much inline with the long end of your sigma).

[Roosta]

Thanks for the info guys.
Roosta,
I assume you mean that you never need the IS. If you are shooting indoors what do you do - assume you use your 18-50/f2.8 Sigma which would be quick enough handheld? (i use a rule of thumb of 1/80s for shooting indoors which is pretty much inline with the long end of your sigma).

Yeap, spelling and grammar error there, Steady hands, Shooting indoors, not so much sitting around the house, sports and concerts, Took it to A day on the green, had my tripod collar hooked up to monopod, worked a treat, and yes, you must be carefull with Shutter speed, but if you use the iso and exp adjustments correctly, that helps tremendesly. Especially concert venues. Oh, and the 18-50 is a little ripper. Highly recommend it.

[carrg1954]

f4IS.. I don't think about it and I don't need the extra stop.
regards

[rwg717]

I have both the f4 non-IS and the older f2.8IS and I think that for what you want to do the f4 is the go, even without IS . Look at it objectively, if you have good light outdoors you can run most any shutter speed you like and negate the need for IS. Go inside without too much light....hey, lets put the whole thing on a tripod and get really nice prints. Just don't tell anyone you used a tripod
Richard

[Cadnium]

Thanks guys.

Did some more shutter speed tests today as/after the sun went down and you have definately brought me into a different line of thinking - i am not convinced i need IS. Indoors, definately but it is a long lens to use indoors. I think i have gone full circle and will look closely at the f/2.8 non-is which is around the budget i was aiming for.

[Kerro]

I have 70-200mm F4L IS and find I don't really need the IS. So I could hve saved my bucks and bought the F2.8
Now the 400mm F2.8 is A LENS