70/200 L f4 Vs70/200Lis f4 Canon

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by Rockford, Jan 18, 2010.

  1. Rockford

    Rockford TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sunshine Sate
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Let the shootout begin, which one and why.

    Whats your favorite of the two,
     
  2. Timothy

    Timothy TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    so really the only difference between the two is that one is is

    honestly wouldn't that be the one you'd want
     
  3. erhard

    erhard TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bozeman MT
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    '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.
     
  4. HikinMike

    HikinMike No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Atwater, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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. ;)
     
  5. Rockford

    Rockford TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sunshine Sate
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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
    .
     
  6. HikinMike

    HikinMike No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Atwater, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    One of my favorites of my daughter...

    [​IMG]
    5D, 70-200mm f/4L, ISO 3200, f/4, 1/320
     
  7. Rockford

    Rockford TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sunshine Sate
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    duplicate post
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2010
  8. Rockford

    Rockford TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sunshine Sate
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  9. Rockford

    Rockford TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sunshine Sate
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Hey Mike, a Olympic prospect !
     
  10. HikinMike

    HikinMike No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Atwater, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    You never know!
     
  11. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,456
    Likes Received:
    12,795
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  12. RacePhoto

    RacePhoto TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

70-200 f4 for sale

,
70-200l f4 capabilities
,
70-200 f4 vs70-200 f2.8 mobile01
,
canoc 70-300mm f4-5.6 vs70-300mm f4-5.6
,
canon 70-200mm f4 is vs70-300mm
,
canon 70-300 l is f4-5.6 vs70-200
,
canon 70-300 l is f4-5.6 vs70-200 l is f
,
canon 70-300 l is f4-5.6 vs70-200 l is f4
,
canon 70-300 l vs70-200 f2.8
,
gymnastics