70-200 f4 vs f2.8

[FotoPhreak]

I have just been to

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24772

And it seems that its about 50/50 as to what people own/prefer to use between the 70-200 f4 and the f2.8.

Question:

1. Do the extra stops really matter to those currently using there lenses?

2. Will the extra stops affect me? And before you say you need to know what I shoot (and fyi I shoot landscape, rockclimbing, portrait, sunset, just about everything) what I really should ask is in what situations will one lense be better than the other (i.e. might be shooting sunsets requires the extra stops, so the 2.8 is the superior [just having a guess here btw, I still have a lot to learn oh grass hopper])

3. IS -> If I am hanging halfway over a cliff, thus not likely to have a tripod setup in mid air, I'm guessing the IS would be quite an advantage right?!?!

Thanks your assitance people.

[PacAce]

3. IS -> If I am hanging halfway over a cliff, thus not likely to have a tripod setup in mid air, I'm guessing the IS would be quite an advantage right?!?!

If you're hanging halfway over a cliff, do you really want to be carrying a 3.2 pound (without the tripod collar) lens? The 2.8 IS is one heavy sucker even with your two feet firmly on the ground. :shock:

[FotoPhreak]

3. IS -> If I am hanging halfway over a cliff, thus not likely to have a tripod setup in mid air, I'm guessing the IS would be quite an advantage right?!?!

If you're hanging halfway over a cliff, do you really want to be carrying a 3.2 pound (without the tripod collar) lens? The 2.8 IS is one heavy sucker even with your two feet firmly on the ground. :shock:

True, but any other suggestions on lense where I can get both reasonable wide and good close ups that isn't likely to be affected by some movement?!?!

I personally haven't held one, but doing the conversion its only about 1.5 kg ... surely thats not too bad.

Maybe I really should go and try carrying something similar around though (I can hear you already saying).

[Patmandu]

I picked the F4 because it was a *lot* less expensive and I use it outdoors where I don't miss the extra speed. I suppose it really depends on what you want to shoot...

[Belmondo]

I own both. The f/2.8 IS version is a marvelous bit of technology, and is probably worth the extra money. The extra f-stop does allow a considerably faster shutter in equivalent light, and the IS makes it just that much better. Another thing to remember, the f4 version does not come with a tripod ring, so add another $100 or so to the cost to really get the best use of the lens. I always thought it was an ironic decision on Canon's part because this lens needs a tripod much more than the f/2.8 version.

All that having been said, the f/4 is a much easier lens to handle, and if you have reasonable light conditions and are expect to be carrying the camera and lens around all day, the weight difference will matter.

On paper, the f/4 looks like a real bargain alongside the f/2.8. It really isn't, but may very well be a perfectly adequate lens for the majority of people considering buying a lens in this focal range. In that case, the extra money for the 2.8 IS variant could be hard to justify.

[FotoPhreak]

Thanks Belmondo.

Another quick question ...

Do you think I will be able to be stable enough when sitting on a rope over the edge of a cliff?

I'm thinking I might be fine, but then again IS is IS!

[Belmondo]

Let me see. How do I say this tactfully?

Anyone who hangs over a cliff on a rope is likely to be inherently unstable, although their perch could very possibly be steady enough for picture taking. I would have to assume you're doing this in daylight, so you probably don't need the extra f-stop. If you can shoot at 1/250 or faster, you shouldn't need IS.

On the other hand, if you're dangling your young self over cliffs at times of the day when light is marginal, perhaps you need counseling more than you need a camera. :wink: :wink:

I think you might want to consider buying the cheaper lens and using the extra money for stronger ropes.

I'm praying for you.

Thos. :lol: :lol:

[FotoPhreak]

Let me see. How do I say this tactfully?

Anyone who hangs over a cliff on a rope is likely to be inherently unstable, although their perch could very possibly be steady enough for picture taking. I would have to assume you're doing this in daylight, so you probably don't need the extra f-stop. If you can shoot at 1/250 or faster, you shouldn't need IS.

On the other hand, if you're dangling your young self over cliffs at times of the day when light is marginal, perhaps you need counseling more than you need a camera. :wink: :wink:

I think you might want to consider buying the cheaper lens and using the extra money for stronger ropes.

I'm praying for you.

Thos. :lol: :lol:

Man you are one funny fellow! :lol: LMAO

Question ... I have started to pick up on this through other posts, but do you know of anywhere I could read about things (tables) like what shutter speed to set at to not have to worry about IS?

Question ... when you say "if you can shoot at 1/250 or faster" ... why would I not be able to (or in what situations would I not be able to?)?

[BDM]

[[/quote]

Question ... when you say "if you can shoot at 1/250 or faster" ... why would I not be able to (or in what situations would I not be able to?)?[/quote]

Low light levels or a need for a greater depth of field at longer focal length settings even in relatively good light.


Bruce

[BDM]

[[/quote]

Question ... when you say "if you can shoot at 1/250 or faster" ... why would I not be able to (or in what situations would I not be able to?)?[/quote]

Low light levels or a need for a greater depth of field at longer focal length settings even in relatively good light.


Bruce

[Phil Hall]

I have the f2.8, which is great for dusk shots or early morning. The IS is really worth the extra money. Just about all shots come out sharper and I hardly ever use a tripod, you can save several hundred $ right there.

[FotoPhreak]

I have the f2.8, which is great for dusk shots or early morning. The IS is really worth the extra money. Just about all shots come out sharper and I hardly ever use a tripod, you can save several hundred $ right there.

Interesting Phil,

Thanks.

Question: You don't think the weight is too much of an issue? :?:

Just that I have started to question whether the lense is even an option due to others saying it is extremely heavy - thinking now 28-135 IS.

Snap me out of the non-L if you don't think the weight is too much of an issue.

[vvizard]

I have the f2.8, which is great for dusk shots or early morning. The IS is really worth the extra money. Just about all shots come out sharper and I hardly ever use a tripod, you can save several hundred $ right there.

Interesting Phil,

Thanks.

Question: You don't think the weight is too much of an issue? :?:

Just that I have started to question whether the lens is even an option due to others saying it is extremely heavy - thinking now 28-135 IS.

Snap me out of the non-L if you don't think the weight is too much of an issue.

Ok I will snap you out of L-thoughts. But not with the 28-135 IS. I've heard some good things about this lens, but (wild guess) I don't think it's quite "up there" as the good 70-200's is. Why? Simply because creating a 70-200 is a heck lot easier than a 28-135. And since the 28-135 is as "cheap" as it is, _AND_ got IS (which basically just makes it "cheaper"), I think they sure must have cut some corners there.. But that's just out of my head. I'm sure some owners of the lens will tell you I'm wrong (and if the owner says it, it's more likely to be true than what I'm telling :))

WARNING: THIS POST WILL BE LONG, AND MOSTLY OFF TOPIC, BUT ANSWERS TO SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS "MIGHT" BE ANSWERED ALONG THE WAY. HOPEFULLY ALSO SOME OTHER "ISSUES" ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY THAT NEWBIES MIGHT FACE. EXCUSE ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT YOU LOOK KIND OF NEW TO THE GAME, AND I KNOW ALL ABOUT THAT, CAUSE I WAS BRAND NEW MYSELF IN OCTOBER (WHICH MEAN I'M STILL BRAND NEW). THANK YOU ;)

Anyways, I can give you some info on f/4 vs f/2.8, and L vs non-L in the 70-200mm range. First of all, you got photography as a hobby. And as you've probably experienced by now, photography is not as good describing word as Photofraud would've been. When I first looked into photography for real (3-4 months ago) I was wondering if I should blow off _WAY_ to much money on equipment that looked real nice to work with. After all, if you think photography might be for you, then you sure don't want to make it a nightmare by buying some crappy equipment the first time to ruin the experience, and make you quit :/ So after thorough investigation, I laid my eyes on the 10D. Technofreak as I am, I got a great gift. I'm very good at "feeling" (knowing) if a product is good, just by reading the specs for it, seeing a picture of it, and finaly see the price. If I'm ever in doubt, I back it up by reading a few reviews, although, I seldom do, and I've never regretted a purchase either.. I'd just like to call it a gift I'm very happy for having..

Well almost without any photography-skills (and even less experience) I pointed out the 10D after 1-2 hours research, knowing nothing about SLR beforehand (not 35mm either). I analyzed the cost, and found out I could barely make it. I told my father of my plans to actually purchase a DSLR. He's and old hobby-photographer (been most of his life). He told me that when he was my age, he worked two years saving to buy his first batch of photogear (he spent about a half years salary *auch*). He was thrilled about me actually getting head-first into the hobby he have enjoyed so much. And of course a little jealous of the thought that I would buy a DSLR (he's a bit technofreak himself). But he warned me, that even if I was shooting digital, going into the SLR-area would cost me. Bigtime! Man, I wish he had made that even clearer, so that I now could've been the happy owner of a Ixus, still not knowing what "L" meant ;)

After deciding to buy (but before actually buying) the 10D, I started to look at lens-prices. I was glad to see that my dad was wrong. I could get 75-300mm lenses for just about $200. I was relieved knowing that the new hobby would be a one-time investment. Of course there where those "insane expensive lenses" also in the catalog (must have been the 70-200 f/4 and everthing more expensive I think =] ). But why bother. All that differed them from the ones I was gonna buy was a lower f-number and a higher price. WOW! This is truly a great hobby! I can just go pick the lens with the highest ("high = best" of course) f-number, and as an added bonus, get it cheaper.. Why isn't my other hobby (computers/gadgets) like this? :-P So I placed an order for the 10D (and a mastercard to pay for it ;)).

One day my father asked me when my camera would arrive. So I told him I'd bought it, and that it should arrive in a week or so. He asked what lens(es) I was buying. So I told him I was going to get a 75-300mm, and maybe a 28-105 along with it if I could afford. He asked me what f-numbers those had. Not that I had cared, so I just showed him the lenses in the webshop instead. He hmmm'ed and ehrmm'ed a bit, and told me that zoom-lenses might not give the best result (last time he shot SLR (a long time ago), zoom-lens equaled _CRAP_). He also warned against zooms with variable f-number, saying they might not be very good. I was just silently blowing his advice off. Pardon me, he's a "dinosaur", of course today's technology have gotten rid of such issues. Heck it's only glass, how terrible wrong can you make it? But anyway, I got a bit sceptic. Wanted to check if there was anything right in what he was saying.. So I googled around a bit, and found this forum. And from that day on. MY LIFE HAVE BEEN A MESS EVER AFTER!

My dad had actually been right all along the way. The cam itself is friggin in-expensive compared to lenses and accessories :-P But I got a good cam, so I don't want to blow it buy putting bad glass in front of it. I'm a student, so I'm not making much money. That means I don't have lot of lenses yet. But I have two. Two good ones. Instead of 6 bad ones. And I actually like that. Although I can't wait until I finally can afford a good wide-angle. I know that every day until then, I'm missing every wide-angle shot I could've taken. I could've had a decent wide-angle now (among several other lenses). I'm just not that kind of person. I won't waste money on "decent" things. I'll rather save for a while, and buy "GREAT" things. I know this was _LOT_ of unnecessary information, totally off-topic in the f/2.8 vs f/4 issue. But hopefully, some guy who's wondering if he should upgrade his Ixus to a Drebel might get saved, and rather stay on having a nice life with his Ixus, than a miserable life with L-lenses ;) So I do regret starting with photography then? No. Not at all.. And that's actually the worst part about it all ;)

Now let's get back on topic. After I found this forum, and found out that my dad was right. The zoom-lenses with fixed f-numbers usually are greater than the ones with variable. So that certainly led me into the f/X vs f/Y instead. And as you (and probably a million others) more precisely the f/2.8 vs f/4 @Â*70-200mm. I picked f/2.8 (although not "L") and here's why:

I live in Norway. Guess that needs no further explanation, but I'll give it anyway ;) Our winter lasts half the ******* year! During winter, I have like 3-4 hours of good sunlight. Rest of the day is either dim, or pitch black. _MANY_ days is just dim or pitch black (never decent light). The autumns specially are bad. An overcasted autumn day, might mean I'm having real trouble handholding 200mm @ f/2.8. Yeah, then you can think what f/4 would be like. (Just to the guys who don't.. it would be *impossible*). If you shoot sunset's then you're (hopefully) on a tripod, and you won't use 2.8 anyway. But if you're forced to shoot handheld, and moving subjects, then you'll certainly need 2.8 sometimes. Some use the formula 1/<focal-length> to tell how fast shutter-speed you need. That means at least 1/200 for freezing a frame at 200mm. I don't have experimented enough to know if it's true. Although my physics-sense tell me there's more involved (physical length of lens for example) this might be quite right. When I shoot less than 1/200, I often get blur as a result.

You should also ask if there's a possibility of ever shooting indoors. If you do, you'll definitely want f/2.8.

Price is of course a factor. And here's where I decided not to jump on the 70-200mm f/2.8L. I decided against the 70-200mm f/4L, and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8EX. I took EX because I need f/2.8. Although the Sigma "looks" a bit more expensive, it actually isn't. As Belmondo said, just the tripod-collar for the f/4L will run you about $100 (whether you believe it or not). The f/4L doesn't use the "standard" 77mm filter-thread either, so unless you'll be buying step-up/down rings, you'll need a new set of filters (also expensive). Luckily enough I figured this out before buying the f/4L. I haven't regretted the Sigma one time. Instead of thinking about the money I could've "saved" on buying the f/4L, I'll rather think of it like by buying the Sigma, I got the f/2.8 for free. They would probably have costed about the same when I had added in a tripod-collar and a new UV-filter anyway.

Weight is definetley a question. Believe it or not. I wondered if the 1.5KG of the Sigma-lens would be a problem. So I found things weighting about the same, and held it a bit to see.. Nope, no problem at all.. But I sure as, the place down there (no not Australia) didn't have the same meaning after lurking around a full day with the 10D and 70-200 around my neck ;) The weight is just another thing we newbies don't get warned against when entering the Photofraud game ;)

So welcome to PhotoFraud Inc.

--------------------------
"Sure you'll need this f/2.8 lens. It's only "soo" much more expensive than our cheap f/4 version. Of course.. It really sucks below f/4 anyawy, but that I won't tell you"

"Sure you need _THIS_ cam, and not that. Can't you see the megapixel-difference? Of course, everything else in this cam sucks, but that's something I'm for suuuuuure won't tell you"

"Sure it's a bit heavier. But hey! It's only 1.5kg anyway, it's really nothing.. You should just wait until having it around your neck for a week.. But that I'm for _CERTAIN_ won't tell you"
----------------------------

Anybody feeling a dejavu here? BTW: I do not think the f/2.8 I was talking about in this article suck below f/4. Anyway it gives a clue about how much we newbies can get screwed in this game :) Thank heaven for good forums like this where we can get enlightened before doing something terrible stupid. The only "drawback" from it, is that you'll get brainwashed by L-aholics in a terrible short time =D To round of this already way to long post, I put in my photofraud-modified version of the alread famous Adminspotting (itself a mod of the famous movie "Trainspotting")

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Choose no life. Choose photography. Choose no career.
Choose no family. Choose a ****ing expensive camera, choose
L-lenses the size of the Empire State Building, old cars, CF-cards and
battery-grips. Choose no sleep, high caffeine and mental insurance.
Choose fixed interest lens loans. Choose a rented shoebox. Choose
no friends. Choose army jeans and matching camouflage jackets.
Choose a tripod for your office. Choose Photoshop and wonder
why the **** you're logged on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting
in your chair looking at mind-screwing, spirit-crushing focus-problems
and sensor dust. Choose sitting in the forrest 04:00 AM looking
for a friggin bird, while adjusting your ****ing aperture. Choose
rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last miserable words at
a photographic forum. Nothing more than an embarassment to poor
selfish, ****ed up measurebators Canon spawned to replace the real
journalists.

Choose your future
Choose L
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you that was all :)

[FotoPhreak]

Thanks vvizard ...

Long post, so it might take me some time to divulge all that information.

Appreciate your effort, and will get back to you soon.

[Sketcher]

I owned the 70-200 f/4L and sold it to save up for the f/2.8L IS version. I really like the f/2.8 IS and do appreciably notice an advantage over the f/4 in lower light and situations which would normally require a tripod.

If I were to do it over, I would have still bought the f/2.8 but I would have kept the f/4 as well. I miss the 4. The f/4 is a sweet, fast focusing lens which always surprised me that it didn't feel heavier than it looked. You can do the math and say that the weight difference between the two isn't that big a deal but I certainly notice the difference and it does change the way you carry and handle your gear. A friend of mine climbs and from listening to his stories it seems to me that gear weight is a significant concern. I would recommend, perhaps renting the lenses and see how you feel about them when you're on the ropes.

If you're willing to step away from the "L", and can wait 'till it hits the shelves; the EF 70-300 DO IS USM (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012902canon70300do.asp) is really light compared to the 70-200's, mucho smaller, gives an extra 100mm of reach AND has IS!. You lose the constant aperture but considering the advantages of this lens especially in a size/weight conscious situation it's certainly worth considering. And it'll cost less than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Just a thought

Sounds like a neat adventure! Looking forward to seeing what you capture.

**EDIT** vvizard, excellent post you've put up there! I admit I glossed it over at first but went back and read it; glad I did.

[nosquare2003]

Vvizard, really long post and sorry that I haven't read in full.

I get the Sigma lens recently. But I think that it'd be better to use a tripod for landscape. Weight and a bulky bag does matter for rockclimbing. A consumer zoom may be suitable then.

Perhaps, it may be good to consider if any new Canon lenses suit Fotofreak's need.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow,.

I have just been "schooled".... :(

I hearby pass on my title of "Most Longwinded Poster" to VVizard who has totally obliterated any record I may have held.

Hail to the King!!!! :wink:

Actually, it was a great read!


In some ways mirrors a lot of my own experience, and I'm sure a lot of us. Scraping up $1,500.00 for the 10D seemed to be the largest investment of my life,. little did I know it was th tip of the iceberg!

[EXA1a]

Have you thought about the new EF 70-300 mm 1/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens? It's light, it's small, it's black, it's got IS and the DO elment promises good optical quality.
Maybe it's worth waiting for the first test shots if they can keep up with the white ones.

Just a thought
--Jens--

[dds]

Hey,
tough decision I faced a few weeks ago...
i got the 70-200 2.8 non IS because I shot a lot my dogs and I need 2.8 (or better I prefer to have the possibility of using it), but, using very low exposure times, I don't think I need IS.
I'm very happy with my baby :lol:
Just my decisional process.

DDS

P.S. can't tell about sigma. Sorry

[Avarond]

You guys make it really hard to make up your mind between the sigma 2.8 ex and the canon f/4 70-200's. About the time I think I have it figured out someone says something new on these lenses and I start thinking about it again. I had decided to go with the Canon 70-200 f/4 yesterday but B&H is out of stock so now I have a few more days for everyone to sway my opinion again. Last week it was the Sigma, but then the photographer at the camera shop said he woudnt get the Sigma because it took alot longer to focus than the 70-200 f/4 canon.

Sigh

940.00 for f/2.8 Sigma 70-200 and filters
786.00 for f/4 Canon 70-200 tripod ring and filters.

Decisions, Decisions, anyways always fun to read everyone's post and even though you make it hard to decide on a lens its better than the cheapo lens I was going to buy when I had no knowledge of how good pictures could look with good glass in front of it.

[vvizard]

If the Canon is any faster I can't say, cause I've never tried it. But beeing a _LOT_ faster than the Sigma I have hard to believe. The focusing-speed of the Sigma have never missed me a shot, and I've shot quite a lot of cars at ~ 60Mph (100Km/h) with it lately, birds in-flight, etc. So either I've been extreme lucky, or this lens is indeed very good. But production-samples might vary of course, so ask what other in this forum with this lens are thinking of it (preferably someone who've used both the Sigma and Canon)

[Sketcher]

ask what other in this forum with this lens are thinking of it (preferably someone who've used both the Sigma and Canon)
IIRC, CDS owns both the Sigma and Canon 70-200 f/2.8's and posted his opinion of the two in first impression comparison. I think he said that he actually prefers the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM to either of those... but I may be mistaken.. :wink:

[Groundworxs]

I was in the same situation. I had already placed my order for a sigma 70-200 2.8. Then my photography teacher informeed me of many compatiblitity problems that he had heard about from other students.

I went down to a local camera shop and put both lenses on a 10d. The sigma had great difficulty focusing it was very slow. It would go past the point of focus and then return to the item i wanted to focus on as if it was double checking. I put on the canon 70-200 2.8 it locked in very quickly every time. I changed my oreder and now have the canon 2.8 it is outstanding!

Something to consider you will not have a problem with your lenses in the future when canon brings out a new camera your canon will work. Your sigma ma or may not i have heard sigma is very good with re to customer service.

At the time i had a hard time with the price for the canon 2.8 this was quickly erased when i saw the images. If price is an issues the canon f4 is an excellent lens you will be pleased with it.

The sweetness of quality remains long after the bitterness of the price has dissolved.

don't really know what that has to do with anything i saw it once in a pizza store 10 years ago and have never had the opportunoty to use the line. They charged about $8 a slice and are now out of biz so there you go.

Good LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLuck No i am not trying to say you should buy the L glass what gave you that idea?
Tom D

[Man-Fai Wong]

I went down to a local camera shop and put both lenses on a 10d. The sigma had great difficulty focusing it was very slow. It would go past the point of focus and then return to the item i wanted to focus on as if it was double checking. I put on the canon 70-200 2.8 it locked in very quickly every time. I changed my oreder and now have the canon 2.8 it is outstanding!

That sounds like the infamous focusing problem w/ 10D and non Canon lenses at/near wide open apertures.


If you shoot sunset's then you're (hopefully) on a tripod, and you won't use 2.8 anyway. But if you're forced to shoot handheld, and moving subjects, then you'll certainly need 2.8 sometimes. Some use the formula 1/<focal-length> to tell how fast shutter-speed you need. That means at least 1/200 for freezing a frame at 200mm. I don't have experimented enough to know if it's true. Although my physics-sense tell me there's more involved (physical length of lens for example) this might be quite right. When I shoot less than 1/200, I often get blur as a result.

I too could not read through that huge long post, but got as far as this point and thought I might as well address it (in case nobody else ever sees it). :D

That rule comes from the 35mm film world and has more to do w/ handshake than moving subject if I understand correctly. With a 10D, you need to factor in the 1.6x crop factor, so actually, the rule would say you need 1/320sec for 200mm lens since its effective focal length is 320mm.

Personally, I find that I can deal w/ 1/2 the speed of that rule for normal/comfortable shooting situation w/ non-moving subjects. But if you want a very reliable shot and/or are in somewhat less than normal/comfy situation, it's best to stick w/ the rule. And it sounds like that's roughly your experience also.

_Man_