Question on 70-200 f/4 vs 70-200 f/2.8 IS

[dpanicc1]

I am just about ready to list my 70-200 f/4 on ebay but before I do I have a few questions. The f/4 takes stunning photographs. I seem to remember a few people commenting that the f/4 may have slightly better image quality than the f/2.8 IS. Before I sell it I want to make sure what I plan on getting (aside from speed) will be at least equal (image quality).

Comments please.

Thanks,
Dan

[Whaler]

Dan,

As you can see below, I too own the f/4. You stated and I agree, "The f/4 takes stunning photographs" You'll be lucky to get $500 + - 5%. The cost of a 2.8 IS is $1400 + - 5%. I can think of a lot of photographic needs/wants I could get with a grand. With that said, you need a little extra speed for a couple of shots? Find the ISO button and as Emeril would say "KICK IT UP A NOTCH". My 2 cents. :D

Mike

[Scottes]

Yep, I would really wonder if the extra stop - a flip of ISO - would be worth that much extra cash. The IS is definitely nice, so that makes it tougher.

Is the 70-200 range perfect for you? Then it's a no-brainer.
Could you use more reach? The 100-400 IS is quite nice.

I guess that I'd ask what you do and why you want the 2.8 IS.

[dpanicc1]

Thanks for your responses. I would like the speed for available light (weddings) where a flash can't be used (in most cases). It would be nice to move away from the tripod (when possible) for outside shots (landscapes, races, candids, structures). Using this lens from my boat should be great--almost like IS was invented for "boat" photography.

Any opinions comparing image quality on the two lenses?

Thanks,
Dan

[PGR70]

Hmmm, I don't think the 1 stop difference between 4.0 and 2.8 will enable you to take pictures inside without flash while retaining reasonable exposure times to be able to take pictures at 200mm, even with 'kickin' up' the ISO to 1600/3200...

If you need _that_ much light, I think you should consider a prime with a even larger aperture, such as the 135 f/2 L.

I guarantee you: the 2.8 will not be enough....

[dpanicc1]

It's really more like three stops, yes? IS provides an additional hand-held ability, I think, of two stops + f/4 to f/2.8 provides one more for a total of three stops. Correct me if I am wrong. And then from there you can pick up a couple more with reasonable noise using ISO.

Still wondering if anyone can make a statement about image quality between the two lenses.

TIA

[LiquidMantis]

It's really more like three stops, yes? IS provides an additional hand-held ability, I think, of two stops + f/4 to f/2.8 provides one more for a total of three stops. Correct me if I am wrong. And then from there you can pick up a couple more with reasonable noise using ISO.

Still wondering if anyone can make a statement about image quality between the two lenses.

TIA

The ISO defense is a misdirection, you can push the ISO up on ANY lens so you can't say that turning the ISO up on one lens makes it the equivalent of a faster lens.

I feel similarly about the IS. It is a great feature no doubt, but it's not a universal stop increase. If you are trying to stop action you're going to need a decent enough shutter speed that IS becomes fairly moot on all but the longest lenses.

Just my green opinion...

[CyberDyneSystems]

I purchased a 70-200 f/2.8 for indoor event photography...

It's a workable solution,. but bottom line?

I am looking at both the 85mm f/1.8 or 1.3 and the 135mm f/2

I mention this only because you may find your slef wanting more aperture as well.. for the cost of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS you could own both.. (if the 85mm was the f/1.8)

...you may want ot ski a step here and go straight for the primes and keep your f/4 :)

[Whaler]

Duh :oops: That's right, IS is good for a couple of extra stops. I forgot about that. Good point. I guess if you're making a living with your gear, that would justify the additional expendature. 2 cents more

[rick barclay]

The comments about an f/2.8 not being sufficient for indoor shooting is
very interesting and helpful. I had thought otherwise. That makes me rethink my opinion about a wide-angled 135mm lens with an f/2 or larger
aperture. I definitely wouldn't want to use a flash for any kind of indoor event except portrait-taking, where no one is going to be offended by
lights going off.

[randyk]

I purchased a 70-200 f/2.8 for indoor event photography...

It's a workable solution,. but bottom line?

I am looking at both the 85mm f/1.8 or 1.3 and the 135mm f/2

I mention this only because you may find your slef wanting more aperture as well.. for the cost of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS you could own both.. (if the 85mm was the f/1.8)

...you may want ot ski a step here and go straight for the primes and keep your f/4 :)

I had the 70-200f4 and only picked up the 2.8 IS version because I got in on the Dell deal. Maybe I sold the f4 too quickly, the IS is so much bigger/heavier and I agree, 2.8 is not fast enought in really low light/indoors. Just picked up a 85 1.8 today, everyone says this is one of a couple primes that are ideal for low light sports.

In hindsight, maybe I should have kept the f4, picked up the fast 85 and 135 primes and sold the 2.8IS. Guess I can still do that since I got such a great deal on the 2.8 IS. Want to give these 2 newer lenses plenty of testing before I do anything thoug.

[randyk]

The comments about an f/2.8 not being sufficient for indoor shooting is
very interesting and helpful. I had thought otherwise. That makes me rethink my opinion about a wide-angled 135mm lens with an f/2 or larger
aperture. I definitely wouldn't want to use a flash for any kind of indoor event except portrait-taking, where no one is going to be offended by
lights going off.

Whether 2.8 is fast enuff indoors really depends on the lighting and if the subject is moving. But its definitely not in poorly lit gyms. Its amazing how the light level can look fine by eye but even bumping ISO to 1600 may not get shutter speed to 1/500, even wide open 2.8.

On the other hand, I was at a pro hockey arena recently and ISO 400, 1/1000 plus was no problem. I even used a 1.4x extender which reduced the lens to 4.0 aperture.

[PGR70]

@dpanicc1

No, there's actually only one stop between 2.8 and 4.

A bit of photography theory:

The 1-stop-intervals are:

f22 f16 f11 f8 f5.6 f4 f2.8 f2 f1.4

There's a factor of about 0.7 between them. This factor is constant because the amount of light that get's through the diafragma is doubled every stop when you go from the right to the left in the row of apertures above. I believe that the factor is equal to 1/sqrt(2).

The stop from f4 to f2.8 doubles the amount of light that goes through the diafragma and is equal to bumpin' up the ISO 1 stop, or doubling the exposure time.

[Andy_T]

Thanks for your responses. I would like the speed for available light (weddings) where a flash can't be used (in most cases). It would be nice to move away from the tripod (when possible) for outside shots (landscapes, races, candids, structures). Using this lens from my boat should be great--almost like IS was invented for "boat" photography.

Any opinions comparing image quality on the two lenses?

Thanks,
Dan

Hi,

I don't own any IS lenses, so my mail is just based on some memory I have in the back of my brain from some posts *I think* I read on the forum here:

Check out whether the IS really helps when shooting from a boat!
I don't know if it's designed to get rid of slow motions like the swaying of a boat. But I think I remember a post were somebody stated that 'on a boat, IS don't help much'

Now ... if I'm totally off, those in the know, please correct me!

Regards,
Andy

[stevelew]

There is a huge difference between the two lens when it comes to shooting. Images are probably very similar in sharpness but you get almost 3 stops difference because of the IS. You can hand hold the IS and get very nice sharp pictures but the non IS lens you probably will get some camera shake at the same shutter speeds. You could compensate by shooting at higher ISO's but then you'll get more noise in your photo's.

Is it worth the extra $1000? I guess it depends on what you're shooting. If you're on tripod a lot probably not but if you're handholding or on monopod, then the IS is worth it. My 2 cents worth.

Steve

[dpanicc1]

dpanicc1

No, there's actually only one stop between 2.8 and 4.

A bit of photography theory:

The 1-stop-intervals are:

Ugh, thanks for the comments, but, IS accounts for two solid stops; of course f/4.0 to f/2.8 is only one stop, but you gain a TOTAL of three if you consider the effects of IS. The last person points that out as well. And certainly this is only useful for relatively static objects.

Thanks for everyone's comments in this thread.

[toglenn]

I have the 70-200 IS and find I hardly ever use it. For me, it too heavy to carry along and do any else but photography. Instead of using my handy hip pack, the size of the lens forces to use a Backpack. I perfer traveling much lighter.

I had a 75-300 IS which I regret selling. It was much smaller and lighter yet gave results which came very close to the 70-200 IS. For 95% of my shoots, I see no difference between the lenses.

For existing light pictures, I find the 70-200 IS too long. I prefer using my 50mm f/1.8. Actually the 85 mm f/1.2 would be a great choice but it's very expensive for a limited use lens.

I think the 70-200 f/4 is a very good choice and I may sell the f/2.8 and get one.

toglenn

[dpanicc1]

I think the 70-200 f/4 is a very good choice and I may sell the f/2.8 and get one.

That's interesting. Thanks for the response. Yes, enough people weighed in here and I am rethinking. I am going to keep the f/4 and go with a longer faster prime--probably the 135 f/2. Thanks toglenn.

[playinhockey]

I have used both the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 100 f2 to shoot my daughters basketball games in poorly lit gyms. The 100 f2 is the clear winner. However, outdoors at my sons Lacrosse games the 70-200 2.8 IS is AWESOME!

[Malaxos1]

I have the 70-200 IS and find I hardly ever use it. For me, it too heavy to carry along and do any else but photography. Instead of using my handy hip pack, the size of the lens forces to use a Backpack. I perfer traveling much lighter.

I had a 75-300 IS which I regret selling. It was much smaller and lighter yet gave results which came very close to the 70-200 IS. For 95% of my shoots, I see no difference between the lenses.

For existing light pictures, I find the 70-200 IS too long. I prefer using my 50mm f/1.8. Actually the 85 mm f/1.2 would be a great choice but it's very expensive for a limited use lens.

I think the 70-200 f/4 is a very good choice and I may sell the f/2.8 and get one.

toglenn

I have a brand new 70-200 f4L that I got on Tuesday, so far so good. How much for your IS? I'll give you the new f4 and some cash...Dean

[randyk]

@dpanicc1

No, there's actually only one stop between 2.8 and 4.

A bit of photography theory:

The 1-stop-intervals are:

f22 f16 f11 f8 f5.6 f4 f2.8 f2 f1.4

There's a factor of about 0.7 between them. This factor is constant because the amount of light that get's through the diafragma is doubled every stop when you go from the right to the left in the row of apertures above. I believe that the factor is equal to 1/sqrt(2).

The stop from f4 to f2.8 doubles the amount of light that goes through the diafragma and is equal to bumpin' up the ISO 1 stop, or doubling the exposure time.

Yes, multiply each lower number x 1.4 to get to the next full stop.

[randyk]

For existing light pictures, I find the 70-200 IS too long. I prefer using my 50mm f/1.8. Actually the 85 mm f/1.2 would be a great choice but it's very expensive for a limited use lens.
toglenn

Don't forget the 85 1.8, a great value.