F2.8 vs F4

Rgollar

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
351
Reaction score
108
Location
Michigan
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I am going to buy a Canon EF 24-105mm L lens and my question is it really worth the extra money to get the F2.8L vs the F4.0L? I understand the F2.8L will give you better performance in darker situations. But how often do most people really shot at F2.8? Thanks in advance
 
It may not mean you shoot at 2.8. But focusing at 2.8 might make all the difference in the world.
 
You will get differing answers to that question based on how people shoot. One of my lenses is a f/2.8 lens and I'm not sure I've ever shot it wide open since the depth of field is so limited. However, I seldom shoot in low-light situations so that capability is of little meaning to me. If I DID shoot in low-light on a regular basis it would certainly mean a lot.

Edit ... Sparky's post is also a valid point. More light for focusing means more accurate focusing in many conditions.
 
Thank you guys for your answers.
 
Another big factor besides low light is stopped down sharpness ... Most lens are sharpest about 3 or so stops down .... So to get a nice sharp image with a 2.8 u could shoot around 4-4.5 where as 2.8 might be softer
But with a 4 ull need to be at like 5.6 or 6.3 at least to get a sharper image ...
 
When I'm shooting sports, I'm pretty much always at f/2.8.
 
Great info thanks a ton
 
Uhhhhhh... Canon doesn't make a 24-105/2.8L. Are you talking 24-105/4 vs 24-70/2.8?
 
As o hey tyler noted...the 24-105 doesn't come in the f2.8 flavor. But it does have IS, which is why I chose the 24-105 over the 24-70 f2.8 mark i. For most of my shooting, I'm looking to get a decent depth of field, so f2.8 and faster is not particularly important. BUT...there are times a razor thin depth of field is what I want, so I switch to one of my primes to get the shot.
 
The 24-105 is a great travel/walkaround/general-purpose lens and for stationary objects in low light. The 24-70 is great for anything in low light that is moving and for that beautiful bokeh you get at f/2.8.

My advice: I'm assuming that you're using a crop body, so don't get either. 24mm isn't very wide on a crop, so the flexibility of a standard zoom will be lost on you. Get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which has the best of both worlds with IS and a fast aperture.
 
Uhhhhhh... Canon doesn't make a 24-105/2.8L. Are you talking 24-105/4 vs 24-70/2.8?
Yes my mistake

Thanks TheBiles for your insight. Yes I am using a crop body. I just ordered a Canon 7d upgrading from a t2. I cant wait to get it. The 7d came down so much in price that I just had to get it. I will have to to look into the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Again thanks all for the help.
 
Make sure u understand the difference in depth of field between 2.8 and 4. Today's cameras are so good in low light that lens speed isn't as important, but if u want to isolate your subject with narrow dof low apertures are as important as ever.
 
Today's cameras are so good in low light that lens speed isn't as important

It's still pretty important. If that one stop of light is the difference between pushing my 5D to 12800 ISO or staying at 6400 ISO, I'll take it every day of the week. However, you have to remember that this is only really important when you need to maintain a higher shutter speed due to subject movement or lack of IS.

Sent from my Droid DNA
 
I shoot in 2.8 all the time, and lower. Big difference in 4.0 vs. 2.8.
 
I have decided to just spend the extra than to regret it later. I will pick a lens with the 2.8. Again thanks everyone for the help in this decision.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top