Canon 70-200 f4 vs. 70-200 f2.8

[David84]

Hello all,

For those of you who have shot with both, what circumstances would you really need the f2.8 instead of the f4? I typically do most of my shooting outside - whether landscape, people, etc. The only indoor shooting I do is typically of the kid - which is usually more like 18-50mm range....

Also - this lens would be going on a 5d mkII sometime in the near future.

Any advice is greatly appreciated!

-David

 

[usayit]

f/2.8 for anything that is low light....
f/4 as a walk around lens that is easy to pack...

I personally would rather have the 100-400L and the 70-200 f/2.8L choosing between focal range and speed.

 

[astrostu]

I think people generally say if you shoot much indoors, the f/2.8 is a necessity. For example, I was in a hotel a few months ago and they had lots of orchids around on tables. I wanted to get photos of them. But, it was incredibly low light, and I didn't have my speedlights with me to bounce off of walls. I had to shoot at f/1.4, ISO 400, and still 1/15sec to get anything.

 

[inTempus]

I'm done with f/4 lenses. It's f/2.8 or faster for me going forward. If you don't think you shoot in low light, you're purely a studio photographer. Even if you're a natural light shooter, you'll find yourself outside in less than ideal conditions needing something more than f/4 at ISO 1600.

I also much prefer the creative options f/2.8 gives me.

The f/4 is a nice lens, no doubt. But I wouldn't trade my f/2.8 for it even if you paid me.

 

[KmH]

Plus there is the fact that most lenses perform best with a lens opening less than the maximum.

So, if you have an f/2.8 and stop it down to to improve the sharpness you are still a full stop more open comparred to starting at f/4.

 

[Phranquey]

Nobody's mentioned it yet, but even if you don't require the low-light speed, the f/2.8's are typically the better overall quality lenses. They tend to have the better build qualities, better glass, coatings, etc.

 

[Montana]

And camera bodies (at less sub-pro) autofocus better with 2.8 and fast lenses. Some cross type autofocus sensors require fast glass.

 

[FrankLamont]

The f/2.8 IS version is also... quite nice...

 

[usayit]

Plus there is the fact that most lenses perform best with a lens opening less than the maximum.

The key word is "most". The f/4L is very sharp (no idea about the IS version) even at wide open... some would even say slightly edging out the f/2.8L in certain situations.

In my case, I look and love the Leica 50mm f/1L Noctilux but it isn't as sharp as the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux. The Canon 50mm /f1 is well known to under perform compared t the 50mm f/1.4.

 

[FrankLamont]

The f/4 version is very sharp...

 

[CxThree]

If I am going to a sporting event or some other outdoor event like the zoo or an amusement park, the F4 is my lens of choice. It's tack sharp, light, and smaller than the F2.8L IS. For a wedding or other indoor event, it's F2.8 or lower for me. That's when I get the 70-200 F2.8L IS lens out of the bag.

 

[David84]

I appreciate everyones replies... The 2.8 is obviously more versatile in some situations, I was just trying to justify the cost difference. I think I'm persuaded... I'd shoot myself if I got a lens to find out I regretted it and wanted "the next step up"....

Thanks again for all the informative replies!

-David

 

[mariusz]

if you can afford go with 2.8 shallow depth of field on 2.8 is a huge advantage plus 1 stop faster

 

[Big Mike]

I appreciate everyones replies... The 2.8 is obviously more versatile in some situations, I was just trying to justify the cost difference. I think I'm persuaded... I'd shoot myself if I got a lens to find out I regretted it and wanted "the next step up"....

I think this was one of my biggest justifications for getting the F2.8 L IS version...because I knew that if I got one of the cheaper models, I would regret it. And every time I found myself in a situation where it would be handy, I'd wonder if I could have gotten a better shot.
Now, at least I know I have the best tool for the job (not counting all the prime lenses etc).

Although, there are good points to be made for the F4 version. It's smaller and lighter, which can be a big benefit after carrying it around all day. With the way the new cameras handle high ISO these days, the one stop difference between F2.8 and F4 isn't the huge advantage that it used to be...but the DOF difference is nice.

 

[JerryPH]

I'm done with f/4 lenses. It's f/2.8 or faster for me going forward. ...I also much prefer the creative options f/2.8 gives me.

Amen. Also, a good F/2.8 lens is going to be sharper at F/4 than a lens that starts off at F/4. Basically... no lens is at it's sharpest wide open. Also superior optical qualities are *almost* always a factor too.