70-200 2.8

[dsze]

I'm strongly considering upgrading my 70-200 f/4 to the 2.8 version. I love my f/4 and have gotten some awesome images with it. I'm thinking the 2.8 might help with lower light indoors though. I don't really have the money to get the IS version.

What are people's thoughts about the 2.8? Do I give up anything in the way of focus speed/accuracy, sharpness, bokeh, etc, by giving up my f/4 for the 2.8 non-IS?

thanks,
daniel

[Steve Parr]

I've got the 70-200mm f/2.8L, and I absolutely love it. It's a super-sharp lens, and I love the f/2.8. It's on my camera the vast majority of the time...

[dsze]

I've got the 70-200mm f/2.8L, and I absolutely love it. It's a super-sharp lens, and I love the f/2.8. It's on my camera the vast majority of the time...

Thanks Steve... just curious, had you owned/used the f/4 version prior?

[Andy_T]

Daniel,

haven't used the 70-200/4.0 so far, but when I look at the images taken with my 80-200/2.8 L, about 95% of them are shot @ f/2.8.

This tells me that I made the right decision for myself to go for the used 80-200/2.8L instead of a new 70-200/4.0L (that was my dilemma).

Best regards,
Andy

[Thomas_K]

I recently upgraded my 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.
If the f/2.8 is similar to the IS in use (and i cannot se why it should'nt be) you will NEVER regret making that step.
The added weight is not a problem. You just need to get used to it.
Both my lenses were razor sharp, but you will be able to get shots indoors or in poor lighting, that you would not have gotten with the f/4.

[superdiver]

For those of you who have upgraded, do you keep the f4 or trad it in? Is it worth having both, I wouldnt think so...

[Olegis]

I got my 70-200 f2.8L (non-IS) used about two years ago - it's awesome lens ! I haven't use the f4 version, but I can tell you that the f2.8 is one of the best optical and mechanical instruments you will ever use.

Just like Andy's case - about 90-95% of the shots made with this lens were shot wide open, and lots of them at higher ISO settings (800, 1600), and even then I wished that I had more light. I'm glad I went straight to the 2.8 !

In my galleries there are a lot of pictures I made with this lens - the URL is in the signature, you are invited to check them out (especially the Fauna section).

[Steve Parr]

Thanks Steve... just curious, had you owned/used the f/4 version prior?

I'm afraid I can only comment on the f/2.8 version. I've never used the f/4 version...

[Lavarama]

I have the 70-200 IS 2.8 lens and absolutely love it. :lol:

[AccidentalArt]

I have an f4, about 3 months old, and looking to sell it for the 2.8. The f4 is amazing outside, but for some inside dance stuff I shoot its not quick enough.

[Alextian]

well. I think 70-200 F2.8 no IS version isnt worth to buy.

which not much diff between F4 and F2.8 in low light. unless you can buy IS version.

and F2.8(including F2.8 IS) both are too heavey. I have a 70-200 F2.8 IS which is very very sweet lens but I just totally fed up with the weight.

why dont you buy a primer lens as 85 1.8 or 50 1.4?

[Olegis]

The difference between f4 and f2.8 is exactly one stop of light - which in some situations can be exactly the difference between sharp and soft picture (or "picture" vs. "no picture" situation).

As for IS vs. non-IS - it's very old debate. I personally cannot find justification to pay ~500$ for IS, especially if you shoot primarily moving objects (action sports, cars etc).

[dsze]

Well, I got one today. I went to my local shop... just to look ;) and they just got one of the 2.8 non-IS versions in yesterday. So, I played with it for a while and asked what they'd give me for my f/4 version. They gave me $475 without any UV filters, no bag, no box. I thought that was reasonable. They also threw in a 22" reflector. So, I took it and took the girls to the park on the way home! :)
http://home.comcast.net/~randomphotos/70-200f28/MG_115a.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~randomphotos/70-200f28/MG_1198.jpg

Those are both at 2.8. The bokeh is just incredible. I made it a point to shoot everything in the park today at f/2.8 just to see if I really needed/liked it. I was a little surprised to get home and see that 95% of my shots were dead on with focus. I always had trouble getting spot on focus with my f/4, so I figured that 2.8 would yield worse results in that dept.... I don't know if its more accurate, if my f/4 was problematic (I don't believe it was) or if I just improved my focusing today! :)....but this is one incredible lens.

It weighs about 2lbs more than the f/4 I'm guessing, but even walking around the park for 2 hours holding it (didn't even take a neck strap), I did fine. I don't think the weight will be a problem. There were times when I actually liked it and thought it helped steady my hands.

[dsze]

Alextian,

I disagree. I think paying an extra $500 for IS is a waste. ...age old debate, as has already been stated. I already have the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8. I LOVE both of them. The 70-200 is a different piece of glass though. Besides giving a longer focal length, which can be necessary from the back of a church, it can compress the background in ways that those other 2 can't. Also, as someone already stated f/2.8 is a whole stop less than f/4. That can make a huge difference in a dimly lit church IMO, which is where I plan to use it first, right before I take it outside for some B&G portraits.

[jorj7]

The 70-200 f4L is a very good lens, but is can have difficulty indoors. I've owned
the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, Canon 70-200 f4L, f2.8L, and f2.8LIS. They all are very
good lenses. The f/2.8s are not necessarily sharper then the f4, but are able to
work well indoors. The IS isn't as handy for fast moving indoor sports, but does
help for most other indoor shots. I guess it comes down to how much you can
to spend and if you need the IS or the weight savings....

[claudermilk]

While I don't own either (yet) I have both a f4 and a f2.8 IS available to borrow which I avail myself of frequently. :) They are both excellent lenses and if I didn't need the low light capability the f4 would be great. However, it's the f2.8 IS that is on my to-buy list--I personally think the IS is well worth the expense and weight. Once funds are accumualted that's the way my wallet is voting.

[Dan-o]

Shot mt daughters gymnastics show last weekend with the 2.8. Iso 800 at 2.8 had only enough light to get 150 to 170 shutter speed at 200mm. Did get a few real good shots though. Deff. wouldn't have at f4.

[dave carriger]

The 20d/30d, etc. bodies are supposed to have greater focus accuracy with any lens of 2.8 or better f stop. So given that you went from f4 to f2.8, you should notice more accurate focus and many more "keepers":D

[dsze]

The 20d/30d, etc. bodies are supposed to have greater focus accuracy with any lens of 2.8 or better f stop. So given that you went from f4 to f2.8, you should notice more accurate focus and many more "keepers":D

Why is this? I hadn't heard this before.

[Carzee]

I have owned the 2.8 non IS about 4 weeks and am still getting to know it. I used it thru a parade in very overcast daylight and at ISO 500 the results were excellent. I think f4 would not have worked out. It was so close to raining right until the end. I used the monopod to counter the shakes as much as possible and to take the weight; it was a 2 hour parade.

Also I noticed that the 70-200 zoom does compress files and ranks of marching soldiers more than the 135 prime lens would, but the extra reach and zoom were very helpful to say the least in this situation where security people can confine your opportunities.

[RandyMays]

I have this lens. The more pics I take, the more I love it ! I just put the 1.4xII extender on as well. This just kicks butt !!

[dave carriger]

Why is this? I hadn't heard this before.

F2.8 or faster lenses activates another vertical AF sensor array that does not work with dimmer glass.When canon cameras focus, they use the max. aperature of the lens on the camera to focus no matter what f stop you have the camera set for. I am no tech guru or expert, but you can learn a lot of cool info on camera forums like these!

Go to fredmiranda.com and do a search for canon autofocus f2.8 and check it out!! Congrats on your new lens, I would LOVE to have one.:)

[dsze]

thanks for that info dave. I guess I didn't realize that. I know I'm loving this new 70-20002.8 so far. ...can't wait to use it for this Saturday's wedding.

[TooManyHobbies]

I love my 70-200 2.8 IS and I'm at a loss if I had to give one feature up would it be the 2.8 or the IS. I think they are both great, although with PP, I think the IS may be a little more versatile. Shooting gymnastics indoors, I was glad to have both! Don't sell IS short, it's a wonderful thing.

[calicokat]

Great lens, very sharp and well built

[Andy_T]

Daniel,

great to hear that you could make up your mind so fast and that you like the lens.
That second image of yours is absolutely marvellous ... would you mind to share what post processing you did on it?

Best regards,
Andy

[dsze]

Hi Andy, I usually am not one of these guys who takes forever to make up my mind. I usually have a pretty good idea of what I want and just take it. ...not always a good thing though! I do love the lens so far.

Regarding the second image: All that was done to that image in post was curves, saturation and USM. It was shot RAW and processed initially in RSP. Then just those basic adjustments in PSCS.

[superdiver]

I love my 70-200 2.8 IS and I'm at a loss if I had to give one feature up would it be the 2.8 or the IS. I think they are both great, although with PP, I think the IS may be a little more versatile. Shooting gymnastics indoors, I was glad to have both! Don't sell IS short, it's a wonderful thing.

Can you post some of those pictures? I would like to see how this thing runs when the wheels meet the road so to speak. All I have heard are great things...

[TooManyHobbies]

Can you post some of those pictures? I would like to see how this thing runs when the wheels meet the road so to speak. All I have heard are great things...

These shots were the first I took with the lens and were without monopod or tripod. Since then I've taken much better, but haven't had a chance to go back and get the girls with my experience behind me. I had all of the focus points on and that was a big mistake. I'd post some better ones, but I'm not at home.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1355940&postcount=7

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1355945&postcount=8