Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by Rockford, Jan 18, 2010.
Let the shootout begin, which one and why.
Whats your favorite of the two,
so really the only difference between the two is that one is is
honestly wouldn't that be the one you'd want
'IS' really only comes into its own if you hand hold the lens...its pretty heavy, I have the F2.8 version with IS and I have hand held it but its not fun after a while....so if you'll be using it most with a mono or tripod, get the non IS as it is cheaper to buy, however if you're going to shoot lots of sports, then the IS is invaluable.
I've heard that the 'IS' version is sharper than the non-IS version. I don't know, but I own the f/4L non-IS version and I'm very pleased with it. I would like to buy the 2.8L version only because I do photograph some gymnastic stuff and we can't use flash. FWIW, I do pretty good using the f/4 version with gymnastics.
My thoughts exactally the 2.8 Lis is much heavier, so my sights is on the f4 Lis not as heavy.Going to have to look into weight differences.
Wonder if anyone done a shoot between the f4 Lis vs th e2.8 Lis
Bang for the buck vs IQ they give you
I know Hikinmike uses the f4 and gets beautiful results. Even commented he gets desent results in low lite gym.
Likewise with the f4 vs f4 Lis, Bang for the buck vs IQ they give you
One of my favorites of my daughter...
5D, 70-200mm f/4L, ISO 3200, f/4, 1/320
I found this at another site, thought it would be of interest
Both lenses are excellent and produce great imagery as do all that family of lenses. Don't be fooled into thinking about selecting any of the four 70-200mm "L" cousins due to image quality differences - there is just not enough difference between the four lenses to consider IQ as a selection parameter.
The primary differences between the f/4L IS lens and the f/2.8 IS are maximum aperture and size + weight.
The extra stop of the f/2.8L MAY allow you to stop subjects at a lower light level however, often the single f/stop is not quite enough to make a difference in hand held photography.
I can shoot my f/4L IS at 200mm lens at 1/60 second and expect to achieve near 100% sharp imagery and I can even shoot at 1/30 second and expect a high degree of sharp imagery.
I realize that IS will not stop moving imagery. However, I could not expect anyway near 100% sharp images if I were shooting with the f/2.8 non-IS lens at 1/120 second and would probably get no sharp imagery if I shot at 1/60 second. These two speeds would be the f/2.8 equivalent of 1/60 and 1/30 second at f/4. Sure, IS will not stop moving subjects but, if the entire image is not sharp - the subject will not be sharp. Additionally, using the IS Mode II, I can often get good panning shots of a moving subject at a speed at which I could get no sharpness without IS.
Yes, you can use a tripod or monopod with the 70-200mm f/2.8 and take advantage of the extra f/stop over the f/4L. However, when I am shooting sports, I will normally use the 70-200mm hand held and have a longer lens on a monopod. The 70-200mm is fine when the action draws closer but, does not have enough reach for mid-field shots.
The f/2.8 lens can provide a shorter depth of field which can isolate players but, using 200mm and f/4, the depth of field is reasonably short. A 200mm lens at f/4 focused at 20 feet will provide a depth of field of less than six inches with a 1.6x camera. Using a full frame camera, the DOF is about 8.5 inches. At 40 feet the 1.6x f/4 DOF is 21 inches. This is, IMO, plenty short to isolate individual players.
Some posters make much of the fact that the f/2.8 lens can be used with a 2x TC and still focus with 1.6x cameras. This is a non-factor to me since I don't think much of the results of using a 2x TC.
I shoot with the 70-200mm f/4L IS and 300mm f/4L IS lenses which suits me just fine. But, if I were shooting professionally, equipment cost would be no problem and I would use a pair of 1.3x cameras with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens hand held and the 400mm f/2.8L on a tripod.
The reason that I did not select the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS lens is not the image quality nor the price - both the f/4L IS and the f/2.8L non-IS are pretty equal in those areas.
I chose the f/4L IS because it is a far lighter and smaller sized lens than the f/2.8L. I use my f/4L IS lens as half of a two-camera/two-lens package along with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens for all of my travel and general purpose photography. I can carry the f/4L IS lens and a 40D camera at just about the same weight as the f/2.8L alone. I carry the f/4L IS everywhere and never leave it home due to its weight, This is very important to me as is the ability to hand hold my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens in lower light levels than I could the f/2.8L.
The lighter weight and better hand holding capability makes my f/4L IS lens a far more versatile tool in the way I shoot with it.
Let me modify my statement to say probably the best tele zoom from Canon currently is the 70-200 f/4L IS. That is supported by various reviews and MTF data. My bet is the mkII f/2.8 evens that out completely.
Hey Mike, a Olympic prospect !
You never know!
I thought it was pretty well the consensus that the newer f/4 IS version was a better optical performer than the older non-stabilized f/4 lens.
You should not find any noticeable difference in the photos, sharpness or functions. Both are equally wonderful lenses. The question was f/4 vs f/4 right?
A few things for sure:
IS lenses have water-and dust-proof construction!
About $484 for the IS, do you need IS?
2oz in weight.
minimum focus distance of 3.9' vs minimum focus distance of 3.94' IS according to the specs. hardly worth mentioning.
Separate names with a comma.