f/4 vs f/2.8?

sactown024

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jul 30, 2012
Messages
658
Reaction score
29
Location
New Hampshire
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I saw this ad and was wondering if i should scoop it up?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM

I shot with a 70-200 2.8 II this weekend and loved it but didnt want to be disappointed if I got this, thoughts?
 
I have that lens and love it.

You need to ask yourself if you are going to be shooting in low light frequently. If you are the 2.8 is the better choice.

If not then this lens is a great buy.

I got mine for 450 and do not regret the buy one bit.
 
I have both the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM and the 70-200mm f/2.8 L II. I purchased the 2.8 and won the 4.0. At first I was just going to sell the 4.0 and use the money to buy something else since I already had the big daddy but I was pleasantly surprised at how much I love it. It was soooo much lighter, (I found myself using it so much more because of that) it is sharp as heck, and it is alot smaller so it fits in my bag better for hikes and stuff. I do weddings so I do use my 2.8 for the ceremony 90% of the time, but other than that if I have alot of light I will throw on my 4.0 and save my back a little. You won't be disappointed and neither will your wallet.
 
Miss Kathy, could you post a picture taken with the 4.0? I have no intention in buying it, since I have a priority in buying a prime, but I see those white lenses all the time and I am very very curious to see what they can do :lol:
 
Miss Kathy, could you post a picture taken with the 4.0? I have no intention in buying it, since I have a priority in buying a prime, but I see those white lenses all the time and I am very very curious to see what they can do :lol:

Here is one from a dance recital I shot recently with the f4.0. My iso was cranked on my camera and my images were tack sharp that night!
$thescientist-1549.jpg
 
Seems they are very good and sharp. The fibers of the hair are clearly visible! Nice shot by the way and thanks for the upload :D
 
I saw this ad and was wondering if i should scoop it up?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM

I shot with a 70-200 2.8 II this weekend and loved it but didnt want to be disappointed if I got this, thoughts?
Maybe.
You can't compare the two, they are really different birds AND the new 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is going to be better in many many ways.
However, if you are comparing it to your kit lenses? It should be very impressive.
 
I saw this ad and was wondering if i should scoop it up?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM

I shot with a 70-200 2.8 II this weekend and loved it but didnt want to be disappointed if I got this, thoughts?
Maybe.
You can't compare the two, they are really different birds AND the new 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is going to be better in many many ways.
However, if you are comparing it to your kit lenses? It should be very impressive.

I dont own a kit lens, I typically use the 50mm prime but i just love the way the photos came out this weekend with the 2.8 IS II and wasnt sure if I would be disappointed with the f/4. is it just as sharp and does the IS make a huge difference?

here is a photo i took with it, got many more
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj934eb9zjxq6zq/IMG_6129.jpg
 
I saw this ad and was wondering if i should scoop it up?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM

I shot with a 70-200 2.8 II this weekend and loved it but didnt want to be disappointed if I got this, thoughts?



Maybe.
You can't compare the two, they are really different birds AND the new 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is going to be better in many many ways.
However, if you are comparing it to your kit lenses? It should be very impressive.

I dont own a kit lens, I typically use the 50mm prime but i just love the way the photos came out this weekend with the 2.8 IS II and wasnt sure if I would be disappointed with the f/4. is it just as sharp and does the IS make a huge difference?

here is a photo i took with it, got many more
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj934eb9zjxq6zq/IMG_6129.jpg
You are intending to do weddings and portraits with it, so yes the IS is important to you. You are going to push your shutter speeds and need that IS.
I would expect it to be close (the 50 is a prime, it'll be sharper than any zoom except MAYBE the new 70-200 stopped down about 2 stops) to the f/1.8 50mm when the 70-200 is stopped down at least one stop, but it is not going to have the same insanely good quality as the one you played with. Rent it. It's a cheap one to rent.

I know there is a website where you can compare lenses, but I cannot for the life of me locate it. I've given it out in there several times... I'll keep looking.
 
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L - Review / Test Report

This was tested on the EOS 350D...not exactly a high-megapixel test bed...and one of the two samples was out of whack...

MAKE SURE you do not confuse this older, 1999 design with the MUCH NEWER f/4 model that has IS, and which is a substantially BETTER-performing lens....
 
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L - Review / Test Report

This was tested on the EOS 350D...not exactly a high-megapixel test bed...and one of the two samples was out of whack...

MAKE SURE you do not confuse this older, 1999 design with the MUCH NEWER f/4 model that has IS, and which is a substantially BETTER-performing lens....

the one in the ad i posted is NOT the IS, that was my concern. i really like the focal length but I dont want to spend $500 on the f/4 non IS if its nothing like the one I just shot with (2.8 IS)

I thought about the 85mm prime also but then i saw its the same price as the gen II 70-200 :(
 
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L - Review / Test Report

This was tested on the EOS 350D...not exactly a high-megapixel test bed...and one of the two samples was out of whack...

MAKE SURE you do not confuse this older, 1999 design with the MUCH NEWER f/4 model that has IS, and which is a substantially BETTER-performing lens....

You are talking a 2500 lens to a 500 lens. Think about it. You really do get what you pay for in canon lenses.

the one in the ad i posted is NOT the IS, that was my concern. i really like the focal length but I dont want to spend $500 on the f/4 non IS if its nothing like the one I just shot with (2.8 IS)

I thought about the 85mm prime also but then i saw its the same price as the gen II 70-200 :(
It's nothing like the one you just shot with. It's light years better than a kit lens, but it is not going to compare in the least to the new $2500 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II
 
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L - Review / Test Report

This was tested on the EOS 350D...not exactly a high-megapixel test bed...and one of the two samples was out of whack...

MAKE SURE you do not confuse this older, 1999 design with the MUCH NEWER f/4 model that has IS, and which is a substantially BETTER-performing lens....

You are talking a 2500 lens to a 500 lens. Think about it. You really do get what you pay for in canon lenses.

the one in the ad i posted is NOT the IS, that was my concern. i really like the focal length but I dont want to spend $500 on the f/4 non IS if its nothing like the one I just shot with (2.8 IS)

I thought about the 85mm prime also but then i saw its the same price as the gen II 70-200 :(
It's nothing like the one you just shot with. It's light years better than a kit lens, but it is not going to compare in the least to the new $2500 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II


haha okay thanks, I think I will save the money and put it towards the IS version when tax returns come! Thanks!
 
If you follow it to flickr you can see a very large version. I think it is plenty sharp.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top