(70-200) f/4 vs f/2.8

Discussion in 'Photography Beginners' Forum' started by wh1ppet, May 16, 2009.

  1. wh1ppet

    wh1ppet TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I am trying to acquire only those lenses that are integral for a good semi-professional wedding/portrait photographer. I have about $700, and thinking about buying Canon 50mm 1.8 + 70-200mm f/4 L = $700.

    I know 2.8 L is the best out there, but I can not afford it. Saving-up is not an option in the forseeable future.
    I can afford the f/4, but don't want to regret buying it.

    My questions are:

    1. How much of a difference is there b/w these two? How much more useful is 2.8 over 4?

    2. I will also have to get the non IS version f/4. Does this make the lens pretty much useless?

    3. Are there any other L lenses out there that are $600 and better than the 70-200 f4 L? (By "better", I mean the general lens quality for someone building-up their photo equipment collection).

    Thank you.
     
  2. DemonAstroth

    DemonAstroth TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I own the f4 L IS, and I have used the 2.8 IS.

    Outdoors, I much rather have the f/4 L IS. It is apparently sharper, much smaller, and the IS is great.

    However, as IS cannot stop action, I would imagine that indoors (wedding), the 2.8 is will show its true use.

    You can always sell the one you get, once you have saved up for something faster. Thankfully, unlike cameras, lenses do not lose as much value.
     
  3. farmerj

    farmerj TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    3
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I would look at the Tamron f/2.8 70-200.

    With the 2X tele-converter, you would loose two stops, effectively making it a 400mm f/4 lens.

    You would also have the benefit of having an f/2.8 lens for those low light, indoor shots where you need lens speed to allow faster shutters.

    I am in the works of trading both my f/3.5 Nikkor lenses up to the tamron f/2.8 glass. I'd like the Nikkor, but I just can't afford it, and the Tamron from my experience so far is decent glass for the money.


    That and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.
     
  4. photogincollege

    photogincollege TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, Michigan.
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Actually with the 2x tele it would make it 400 5.6.
     
  5. farmerj

    farmerj TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    3
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    My bad, lose two stops.

    f/2.8-f/4-f/5.6

    The f/3.2 and 3.5 in between are 1/3 stops.

    The 1.4X would make the 200mm f/2.8 a 280mm f/4 and a 400mm f/5.6

    Thanks for the catch Photog.
     
  6. ruaslacker2

    ruaslacker2 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I'd say go for it. I own a non IS 70-200 f4.L it's a fantastic lens, super sharp and weighs a lot less than the 2.8 . I don't think you'll regret it.
     
  7. Jibz

    Jibz TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    As a wedding photographer I think you will have great regrets buying the 4 over the 2.8 lens.
    You need a lens that will give you as much light as possible in dark churches and receptions.
    Outdoors you can get a way with a 4 without problems because most times theres loads of light.
     
  8. inTempus

    inTempus TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,692
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Indiana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    For weddings you will want the faster glass. F/4 is nice for outdoor photography but for indoor low light situations it is less than ideal.

    For your specific needs, get the f/2.8. There are other more cost effective solutions offered by 3rd party lens makers as noted above.
     
  9. Yeah, I'd agree with all here. The 2.8 for wedding is the one photographic scenario where the extra stop really matters... the extra light captured makes it that much easier to work with available light, and the resulting shallow DOF can be quite attractive if used well.

    It's a heavy beast though, no doubt about it.

    What body are you putting this on? If you have a good ISO performer, you can forego the IS.

    Definitely evaluate third party lenses, too.
     
  10. wh1ppet

    wh1ppet TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Don't have a body yet, too scared to pull the trigger. Most likely a 50D.

    Thanks to everyone for the replies!
     
  11. inTempus

    inTempus TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,692
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Indiana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The 50D is an amazing camera. You would be quite happy with the performance and features. I recently sold mine, but only because it was a 3rd body and it rarely was used given my other bodies... so I converted it into another lens. But I do miss it. :) The lady that bought it couldn't be happier.
     
  12. JE Kay

    JE Kay TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SW Ontario
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If you can live with only using it in good light, then you can't go wrong with the f4 version. I regret giving mine up, and will probably get another one soon.

    As many pro's attest to, it's quite frankly the sharpest lens Canon makes and offers up truly stunning results when shot with properly. (I'm not sure what properly means, but people always say it.)

    I look at images I shot with mine when I got it, and I don't know what the hell I was thinking selling it. :(
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

70-200 f 4m or 2.8

,

canon lens 70-200 2.8 versus 4

,

how muc more light 2.8 vs 4