Lens advise - 70-200 f/4 IS

[ShutteredEye]

2.8 all the way.

The difference between f4 and f2.8 may not seem like much, but it's HUGE!!!!

 

[usayit]

If you are a hiker, on the go, type shooter = 70-200 f4L
If you are a portrait type of shooter including indoors = 70-200 f2.8L (IS or non-IS).

When in doubt, choose the 70-200 f2.8L or the Sigma version. (Don't let these guys talk yah into believing that the f2.8L is the only choice.. though) I sold mine in favor for a couple nice primes... wonderful lens.. just didn't fit me.

 

[ketan]

EOS_JD had almost made up my mind on f/4. But Reading all subsequent different Votes / opinions I am almost back to square one. f/2.8 IS is too expensive for me.
So, I am still at the same point where I started:
70-200 f/4 IS
or
70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS)
Mostly I would be shooting birds, at beach, something is desert...
Buying / selling used glasses or getting on rent is alost not done in this part of the world.
Thanks anyway friends.
Ketan

 

[EOS_JD]

I own the 2.8L IS and it's a fabulous lens. I used to own the f4L and although sharp, it was found wanting in lower light as I had to maintain a 1/200th shutter speed to get sharp images. Without IS I found the f4 just a little slow for my use.

I would agree with the majority here and 100% say that f2.8 over f4 really does make a big difference however with the IS in the f4 lens it is a potentially more useful lens depending on what you plan to shoot.

If you don't shoot weddings, birds or sport (or any other fast moving subjects) the f4L IS should be a very competent lens in most lighting situations.

The 2.8L will provide better bokeh, making it a nicer portrait lens and it will be better in lower light if you are shooting moving subjects and will be better when shooting fast moving subjects in all lighting conditions given you can double your shutter speed over the f4.

It's down to you to decide what your shooting style is most likely to be and what lens will suit that.

Money is also a considerationa and as an amateur I don't think you'd be disappointed with either. Try the f4L IS and if you don't think it suits you, sell it (probably for very little loss) and buy a 2.8 (IS preferred).

Tough decision.

 

[usayit]

I am almost back to square one.

hehehe... If you want your head to spin, do a search on
24-105mm f4L IS versus 24-70mm f2.8L

The f4L "series" (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) and the f2.8L "series" (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) lenses from Canon have a different purpose. You just have to first realize your ultimate goal. Way too many people try to compare these two sets of lenses without first deciding what they actually want out of the lens... this is where the confusion lies.

Then throw in options from tokina, tamron, and sigma.. then you head really spins.

 

[usayit]

The 2.8L will provide better bokeh,

Just to be more clear....

At the same aperture, both lenses will provide pleasant even bokeh... both are equal.. both have the same number of aperture blades. The "better" bokeh EOS_JD is referring to is in relation to the shallower DOF obtainable with the larger aperture. Pull up some numbers on a Depth of Field calculator using an aperture of 2.8 and 4 @ 200mm. You have take in consideration of the shallower DOF is necessary.

The weight of the f4 lens is nearly 1/2 of the f2.8 lens. This was one of the core reasons why I sold the lens. I ended up being miserable carrying it on long trips which reduced it to a nice paper weight on my desk for long periods of time. On the other hand, a prime lens of at least f2 of a carefully selected focal length outperformed the f2.8 in all aspects EXCEPT the fact that it is not a zoom.

If you are a professional wedding photographer, by all means.. there is few choices out there that will serve you better... the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Mine was used on a few "event" sessions and it was a wonderful companion... don't do it enough to justify keeping it...

 

[EOS_JD]

Just to be more clear....

At the same aperture, both lenses will provide pleasant even bokeh... both are equal.. both have the same number of aperture blades. The "better" bokeh EOS_JD is referring to is in relation to the shallower DOF obtainable with the larger aperture. Pull up some numbers on a Depth of Field calculator using an aperture of 2.8 and 4 @ 200mm. You have take in consideration of the shallower DOF is necessary.

You are correct I should have said that at an aperture of f2.8, the lens will provide a better bokeh although I wonder are they the same even at f4 and smaller? Depth of field will be the same bt bokeh may differ slightly as they are different lenses.

 

[ShutteredEye]

EOS_JD had almost made up my mind on f/4. But Reading all subsequent different Votes / opinions I am almost back to square one. f/2.8 IS is too expensive for me.
So, I am still at the same point where I started:
70-200 f/4 IS
or
70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS)
Mostly I would be shooting birds, at beach, something is desert...
Buying / selling used glasses or getting on rent is alost not done in this part of the world.
Thanks anyway friends.
Ketan

If you are planning on shooting birds, you'll need both the shutter speed 2.8 affords you, and you may also want the possibility of using a teleconverter... 200mm is 'entry level' for most serious bird shooters, with 300 and 400mm more common. The 2.8 would allow you to use a teleconverter to extend your range, still giving you a 'usable' f-stop.

Just another thought.

I owned the 70-200 non IS for about 2 weeks before I ponied up for the 2.8. There are good points about both lenses, but be very careful-- IS is NOT a replacement for a fast, wide aperture, despite what the company may tell you. They are both great tools, but for completely different reasons.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and I never use it. I find it way too heavy. I am selling it or hopefully trading it.

 

[usayit]

You are correct I should have said that at an aperture of f2.8, the lens will provide a better bokeh although I wonder are they the same even at f4 and smaller? Depth of field will be the same bt bokeh may differ slightly as they are different lenses.

Yes the bokeh will be ever so slightly different depending on the differences of the glass elements... BUT ... it will be so slight that you'll have to put your nose to a print to see it. In my experience, the "smoothness" of the bokeh is more of a function of the number of aperture blades in the lens... out of focus points of light will either appear as hexagons for fewer blades and smooth circular blurs for lenses that achieve a rounded shape aperture using a larger number of blades. In the case of these two lenses, they have the same number of blades.

 

[Patrice]

Ketan,

I'll recommend you to the 2.8 as well. In my opinion the difference from f4 to f2.8 is not marginal, it's significant, f2.8 is twice as fast as f4. Another point to consider is that excecpt for a very few truly exceptional lenses, most will achieve their best performance at one or two stops away from their minimum and maximum apertures. So your f4 lens really might be at it's best by the time it reaches f8, while the f2.8 will start to shine at f4, especially an 'L' lens. Still another point is that very few photographers regret getting good fast lenses, they are a joy to use.

Good luck with your choice and I hope you enjoy your new lens, whichever one you decide to get.

 

[Mike Jordan]

I have both the 70-200 4.0L and 70-200 2.8L IS. The IS is nice when I need it, but most of the time time with the 2.8 I don't need it... and I shoot a lot of low light conditions and indoors. Consider something else besides what others have said about the 2.8L... focus speed. Your camera will be able to focus faster in low light at 2.8 than it will at 4.0. The IS doesn't help with focus speed or relibility at all in AF. Even if you shoot stopped down from 2.8, it will help for focus and composition.

As for weight... you guys are whimps. I carry the 70-200 2.8L IS on my 1DMKII all day when shooting events. If I'm not using the 70-200 2.8L IS I'm using the 100-400 4.5/5.6L IS. And I usually carry my 24-70 2.8L as well. Today's young photographers are just whimps.

I have to admit that if an oppurtunity comes along to get the weight of the strap off my neck, I will do it for awhile though. Good thing I have a wide camera strap.

Mike

 

[usayit]

you guys are whimps. Today's young photographers are just whimps.

Thats not even worth responding to..... eh what hte heck

You are an idiot if you think that shooting an event matches to everyone else's activities or enjoyment. A little self centered aren't we? Honestly... do you really think shooting a dog show is the most physically strenuous activity that members of this forum partake?

A serious hiker would put you (and me) to shame when it comes to endurance... for them every ounce is extremely important.

 

[Mike Jordan]

Thats not even worth responding to..... you are an idiot if you think that shooting an event matches to everyone else's activities or enjoyment.

It's probably a good thing it's not worth your time responding to if you lack even a tiny bit of a sense of humor. I guess humor falls into the muscle mass catagory, huh?



Mike

 

[usayit]

No humor and tact go hand in hand.