Which 70-200 Lens Should I Buy? A Quick Guide
Canon's 70-200 lenses, and a Sigma thrown in for good measure. Not to scale.
With the release of Canon’s latest offering, the EF 70-200 f2.8 USM IS II, Canon has at least 5 pro-quality lenses in the same focal length range. If you include the original EF 80-200 f2.8 from the 1990s (now discontinued, but still available used), the count is up to 6. And then there are the offerings from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and the other third parties. Tokina’s lens in this range, now over 8 years old, has fallen out of favor, and I’ll leave it out of this comparison. Tamron’s offering is very impressive optically, but does not currently have image stabilization. Sigma has recently announced the addition of a new, image stabilized version of their very popular lens (and we can hope for some minor improvements to image quality that is already very good).
As expected, with the differences in features, the prices run the gamut, from a very reasonable $700 to a very hefty $2500. The chart below should cover many of the details.
| Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS II | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L | Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APOMacro HSM II | Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM | Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | $1129 | $1899 | $2399 | $1210 | $799 | $1699 | $729 |
| Weight (g) | 760g (1 lb 10.8 oz.) | 1470g (3 lb 3.85 oz.) | 1490g (3 lb 4.55 oz.) | 1310g | 1369g | ? | 1150g (2lb 8.6oz) |
| Dimensions | 76 x 172mm | 3.4″ x 7.8″ / 86.2mm x 197mm | 3.5″ x 7.8″ / 88.8 x 199mm | 85x194mm | 86 x 184 | 3.4" x 7.8" / 86.4 x 197.6 mm | 3.5" x 7.6" / 89.5 x 194.3mm |
| IS Performance | 4 f-stops | 3 f-stops | 4 f-stops | none | none | 3 f-stops expected, not specified by Sigma | none |
| Motor Type | USM | USM | USM | USM | Silent Wave | Silent Wave | Standard Micro |
| Minimum Focal Distance | 1.2m | 1.3m | 1.2m | 1.5m | 1.8m | 1.4m | .95m |
| Filter Size | 67 | 77 | 77 | 77 | 77 | 77 | 77 |
| Lens Hood | ET-74 (Cost: $55) | ET-86 (Cost: $65) | ET-87 (Cost: $74.95) | ET-83II (Cost: $65) | Included | Included | Included |
| Tripod Collar | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Internal Focusing | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| 70mm RESOLUTION MTF at Center and Edge at f8 | 2092 , 1993.5 (excellent) | 1868, 1866.5 (excellent) | 2394, 2376 (excellent) | 1908.5 , 1990.5 (excellent) | 2029 , 1972.5 (excellent) | ||
| 70mm RESOLUTION MTF at Center and Edge at f4 | 2090.5 , 2004.5 (excellent) | 1917.5, 1827.5 (excellent, very good) | 2530, 2437 (excellent) | 1930.5 , 1922 (excellent) | 1984 , 1813 (excellent, very good) | ||
| 200mm RESOLUTION MTF at Center and edge at f8 | 2084 , 2047 (excellent) | 1880.5 , 1873.5 (excellent) | 2319, 2298 (excellent) | 1956 , 1812 (excellent, very good) | 1772.5 , 1801 (very good) | ||
| 200mm RESOLUTION MTF at Center and edge at f4 | 2024 , 2018.5 (excellent) | 1735.5 , 1682.5 (very good) | 2499, 2318 (excellent) | 1987.5 , 1894.5 (excellent) | 1748.5 , 1635 (very good) |
The MTF 50 numbers provided are all from independent tests (photozone.de) on similar equipment. I’ve refrained from providing MTF data for the other lenses (which are not currently tested at photozone.de) because MTF numbers are notoriously poor comparatives when testing conditions are not identical. Keep in mind that in each case, higher numbers are better, and the somewhat arbitrary cutoff point between the attribution of “excellent” and “very good” is 1850.
For what it’s worth, tests on the latest Canon lens (the mark II) have produced very impressive results. In addition to the improved IS, the image quality is now remarkably high; so high, in fact, that DPreviews give it a “best in class”, as it outperforms even the latest comparable Nikon lens.
How to Decide?
Determinations on what to buy will most likely come down to three factors. The most important is probably subject matter, followed by output type, and finally, your budget!
All of these lenses are designed for use in low light situations, with either a large maximum aperture, image stabilization, or both. Additionally, all of these lenses are designed for full-frame sensor cameras (such as the Canon 5D MarkII) but will also work on APS-C sensor cameras (like the Canon 7D, T2i, 50D, etc). With the APS-C models, you’ll benefit from the sweet-spot effect and get the least vignetting and most consistent sharpness from center to edge.
You can choose a lens with a slightly smaller aperture (f4) but with IS :
- if you shoot in low light but photograph subjects that are not fast moving. An image stabilized f4 lens will give you the equivalent of 3 times more light (3 f-stops) in a situation for hand-holding, but since your shutter speeds will still be slower you won’t have action stopping power. If an f2.8 lens were shooting at 1/250th of a second, an f4 would need to shoot at 1/125th. A non-IS 200mm lens should not be hand held below 1/250th sec, whereas an IS lens can safely be held at 1/30th in many cases.
- if you primarily shoot scenics, architecture, etc, or shoot tripod mounted. If you use a tripod, then the matter of image stabilization is moot, and the aperture is much less important.
- if you don’t shoot in low light. Canon’s f4 IS lens has amazing resolution and is relatively inexpensive, so unless you need the single extra f-stop, it’s a great choice.
You can buy a non-image stabilized lens :
- if you primarily shoot from a tripod or monopod, or need to stop action. Sports photographers and wildlife photographers will not benefit as much from image stabilization because they’re required to shoot at high shutter speeds to stop the action, which already reduces the need for IS. Although IS does help sometimes, it can also sometimes make small adjustments in composition slow or otherwise awkward, too.
- if you shoot with flash, or in bright light. If you shoot with flash but want to keep bright lights/windows etc in the background sharp, IS can be handy, though.
You should buy an f2.8 image stabilized lens :
- if you can afford it. They are the most expensive, but give you the most flexibility.
- if you frequently shoot in low light, especially with high ISO, and with relatively slow moving subjects. News and Wedding photography really require this type of flexibility, unless you’re a heavy flash user/strobist.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
What have your experiences been with these lenses? Although I’ve used most of them, I have not tested many of them thoroughly. I’d be interested to hear your stories and recommendations!
GHTime Code(s): 37926 nc 50e1f 4b3b1 nc b805b c6e0f
Hi Matthew..
I’m new for photojournalism..And I going to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non IS lens(including Law lit works).I also like to do some micro photography..then I need to buy canon 100 2.8 micro.. can I do some micro works with 70-200 f2.8 lens? How is canon 70-200 f4 non IS + canon 100 2.8 micro.If I buy both lenses for canon 70-200 f2.8 price,I can do some indoor micro works with canon 100 2.8 micro.What is your Idea..I am not doing more indoor shootings.
It really depends on exactly how close you need to get. None of the Canon 70-200 lenses will get you into anything like the 1:1 range. However, they will get you pretty close to your subject… like this: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70652
As a journalist, your 70-200 is going to be very important. I would not skimp on that lens at the expense of a macro lens! Since macro lenses are relatively inexpensive (compared to a good 70-200), I’d buy the best 70-200 that you can afford and then save a little longer, if necessary, to buy a macro lens. In the meantime, you could consider the Canon 60mm 2.8 Macro ($395), which is similar to a 100mm lens on a Canon APS-C sensor camera, or the Sigma 50mm macro ($299) or Sigma 70mm macro ($499), which are also both great lenses.
The macro lenses that I mention are shorter focal length than the 100mm that you mention, but if you need the extra focal length to get some distance between yourself and your subject, you’ll probably be out at a distance that can be handled by your 70-200mm.
Good luck!
- Matthew
Thanks I will go with 70-200 2.8 non IS.
Hey Matthew, I am a first time reader of your blog and happy that I found you. I shoot a wide spectrum of photography at the moment as I started shooting professionally about 3 years ago. With budget concerns of starting up I have choose to use the Canon 50D with a mix of L and EF-S lenses. One of the lenses I am using is the EF 70-200 f2.8 USM lens (without IS). I primarily bought it for low light portraits and fast action however, because it has proven to be my ‘best’ lens in my arsenal I have been using it for my Wedding Portraits as well. However, when I use it for weddings I use it hand-held. Though most weddings are during the day, and I use anywhere from 1-3 580EX flashes for the formal shots, it really does get the job done. However the other day I was shooting some business portraits. The shots were done inside and I was mixing flash and sunlight to get the effect I wanted. However I had to shoot at almost 1/80th AND I did not have my tripod handy. (One of my stands I use for my flashes failed and I used a 580EX with the tripod mount with my tripod) I got less then exciting results. Most of the shots were blurry when magnified. Though they looked ok at smaller sizes (even in print). If this becomes a trend I assume you would recommend trading up to the IS but would my money be better spent on the f4 IS? Let me know what you think. I appreciate it greatly!!
Just to be clear, let me say that the 70-200 f2.8 IS II is the better lens; in fact, it may be THE best zoom lens available on the market today. Now, with that out of the way…
With respect to image quality… both lenses will give you better performance than the non-IS lens that you currently have, although unless you’re making big enlargements, the difference may be purely academic.
So, the IS on the 70-200 f4 lens claims 4 stops worth of stability, but obviously the lens is 1 stop slower. This gives you a total improvement of 3 stops of performance, making that 1/80th of a second more like 1/320th sec., which is pretty good, especially if you already have a stable hand.
What more will the 70-200 f2.8 IS II give you? One more stop of exposure if you open up to f2.8. Less depth of field at that aperture, if you need even more help separating your subject from the background (you might take a few test shots at f2.8 and f4 with your current lens to see how much difference this makes to you). Slightly higher resolution if you’re shooting tripod mounted (or perhaps with your strobes only, and at low power).
The difference in price?
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II : $2403
- Canon 70-200 f4 IS : $1130
———————————————-
= $1273
So, I guess the only question is… how much is that extra f-stop worth to you? There have certainly been times that I’d have been happy to pay $1000 for an extra stop of light, but not many. You’ll have to evaluate how the price of one of these lenses will fit into your budget. If it’s a business expense for you, it may be a complete write-off anyway, so cost may not be an issue.
Good luck, and I hope that this has helped a bit!
- Matthew
Thank you so much for your response! Very good point about doing shots at 2.8 and at 4.0 and compare. In fact I originally had the 70-200 f4 L USM originally but found the 2.8 counterpart for the same price so I even traded the lenses. I too started a long time ago with 35mm film and was in the camp that the faster the lens the better and that I would literally trade my left arm for that 1 stop if i needed it, especially in a Zoom lens being that the faster lenses usually meant a great deal more quality as well. Ok long story short, I did compare the 4.0 shots that I had with the 2.8 lens shots I replaced it with and I have to say, tho the 2.8 is nice in ultra low light, the degree of separation at 85mm or greater was so shallow its ‘almost’ unusable in some situations. In fact if I am at 200mm at 2.8, a portrait is sometimes too ‘soft’ to be considered. Anyway, thanks for the food for thought! I appreciate it greatly!!!!