After getting disappointed with two cheaper choice of telephoto lenses I finally got something which I am happy with. My first Canon telephoto lens Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM was quite capable to bring amazing pictures when it got the right shooting condition. Its replacement with shorter range but recommended by many happy users Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM brought even more disappointment at the same area of concern AF, regardless its decent plus of image stabilizer which did work well.

I have to admit that I have always been comparing telephoto lenses with the brilliant Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D I owned during my Nikonian days. I guess that was the honest reason on me being nuisance in choosing optical equipments. Unfortunately my pockets are shallow. When I put my hands in to draw some money, it is very easy to reach the bottom end. So the luxury to get the best option available is just not mine. As always, I have to dance among need, passion, and money.

My first grab on Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L belongs to my fellow Bali photography enthusiast was impressive. Noting absence of IS I had similar impression with my old Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D. But it was a Ferrari in its own species, and as anything else in life, there is price for every bit of excellence. Another issue I was considering was weight. 1,310 grams of Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D was a real burden in active outdoor sessions, in many occasions giving enough reason to go out without it. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L is even heavier at 1,470 grams. Finally presence of IS which I consider nice to have but something I can live without, especially when the price of having it quite significant.

Leaving aside third party contenders like Sigma and Tamron, Canon quartet of 70-200mm in its L series were the only options I considered. The family members were:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L  – 1,470gr – $1,700
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L (non IS) – 1,310gr – $1,150
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS L – 760gr – $1,050
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L (non IS) – 705gr – $650

Canon officially confirmed that all the four shared identical optical and construction quality, so the consideration went to three parameters, speed (maximum aperture), weight, and price. Minor thing to consider as well was tripod collar which was included with both f/2.8 version and optional to both f/4 version. Whilst its light weight of both f4 versions allowed them propery work without tripod collar, it was nice to have and give a better ballance especially when used in conjunction with tele-converter. Tripod collar for f/4 was available from Canon at an additional cost of $65. Third party product was also available at around $30. Another thing was filter thread. F/2.8 versions took 77mm filters whilst f/4 version took 67mm. Whilst price might not be an issue for cheap brands, difference was quite significant for high-end brands like all versions of B+W and pro series of Hoya.

Finally I decided to go for the cheapest version, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L (non IS), with the following considerations:

1. It inheritsed equal optical, mechanical, and construction quality.
2. I was very light, less than a half of the heaviest Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L, which would be definitely delightful in long outdoor session.
3. It was very cheap, almost one third of the most expensive Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L, and almost a half of IS version of f/4.
4. I decided to trade one stop of aperture for affordable weight. Shooting at telephoto I guess one stop narrower was still very capable in producing pleasant bokeh. With high ISO performance of my Canon 5D body, I was comfortable to trade one stop of ISO for one stop of aperture. Beside, for the sake of vibrance shooting portraiture – where 70-200mm mostly worked with full frame camera – requires a higher ISO anyway.
5. I decided to trade the aid of IS for saving $400. I have lived without along with a lot heavier Nikon 80-200D, so for that amount of money, I was prepared to life that way longer and happy enough with the light weight alone. Again, I would depend to both increasing ISO and the hassle of carrying a monopod in low light.

After a few weeks of tuning into local forum, I finally cut a decent deal. A Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L (non IS) in mint condition, still have 7 months remaining warranty, coming along with all purchase package (including warranty card, box, caps, hood, pouch, booklet and plastic sheet), Hoya high quality HMC UV filter, and a third party tripod collar, at about $500. I would have to spend at more than $700 to get the same setup brand new.

First experience was just stunning. Crisp clarity down to the edges, slightly softer edges at the widest aperture which only noticable when the image was blown out extra large. AF works very fast and accurate in almost every situation. Well, to be honest I intentionally said “almost” just to be in the safe side. In fact so far I have never find a situation when it did not work. I was so happy with the excellence at a very light weight package. A little negative was about DOF isolation, bokeh. A little game of distance was required to get desired bokeh, which sometime costed in composition. This example was taken at the longest focal of 200mm, widest aperture of F/4, and medium ISO of 400.

This lens is a real keeper. I think it is the best value for money among the four. I do not think I would want to spend my money to buy the top of the line Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L. For certain result only allowed by f/2.8 I prefer to go for EF 135mm f/2 L priced at about $700. I may want to get the IS version of f/4, but only if I got a lotter, otherwise I prefer to save the $400 for other things.

Related Content

Subscribe to the post comments feeds or Leave a trackback