70-200 f4 IS vs 70-200 f2.8

[Jonathan]

Let me start by saying that I don't think I can justify the cost of a 70-200 f2.8 IS. So the choices I am left with are the f4 IS or f2.8 non IS. Does anyone have any experience of these two lenses or can help me with the pro's and cons? I shoot a lot of travel stuff, shoot inside museums and churches but don't shoot sports or wildlife. Any advice appreciated.

P.S. - the f4 non IS in my sig is on permanent loan to my wife :-(

[august23]

f/4 IS sounds perfect for you. great for travel, best IS on the planet, you'll love it.

[bob-e]

This has been debated eleventybillion times.

70-200 focal length Cliff Notes:

IQ is basically the same on all -- superb.

If you need 2.8 speed and DOF, get 2.8
If you need 2.8 speed and DOF and can't afford the Canon 2.8, get the Sigma 2.8
If not, get f4 IS
If you don't need or can't afford IS, then get f4

[dave kadolph]

Sounds like the f4 IS is a good fit:)

[ed rader]

Let me start by saying that I don't think I can justify the cost of a 70-200 f2.8 IS. So the choices I am left with are the f4 IS or f2.8 non IS. Does anyone have any experience of these two lenses or can help me with the pro's and cons? I shoot a lot of travel stuff, shoot inside museums and churches but don't shoot sports or wildlife. Any advice appreciated.

P.S. - the f4 non IS in my sig is on permanent loan to my wife :-(

if you are shooting indoors without tripod or maybe monopod you'll need IS.

ed rader

[nicksan]

Absolutely, without any question, the 70-200 f4L IS. Since you aren't doing action shots, you would be looking for hand-holdability. No contest there. The f4 IS beats the f2.8 non-IS by 3 stops in this situation.

It also weighs less and less bulky, perfect for traveling.

It's also the sharpest (not enough that it should sway your decision however) of the 70-200 lenses.

I shoot a lot of travel stuff, shoot inside museums and churches but don't shoot sports or wildlife. Any advice appreciated.

P.S. - the f4 non IS in my sig is on permanent loan to my wife :-(

[Jonathan]

Thanks Nick - all I need now is for your mate Bill to drop by and tell me why that's the worst advice on the planet :D

Thanks all for the prompt feedback. Apologies if this question is a rehash of earlier ones.

Is the weight difference that much?

[dave kadolph]

Canon shows 1470gm for the 70-200 Is and 760gm for the f4 Is

Also interesting is the 70-200 non IS is no longer listed confirming the gossip from across the ocean.

[nicksan]

I only feel the weight only when it is being carried and not used!

If you do a A/B comparison with the f4IS then yes, you will feel the difference...not to say these things weight a ton, but during a course of a day, it might start feeling heavy.

Then again, I'm soooooo out of shape...

[ed rader]

I only feel the weight only when it is being carried and not used!

If you do a A/B comparison with the f4IS then yes, you will feel the difference...not to say these things weight a ton, but during a course of a day, it might start feeling heavy.

Then again, I'm soooooo out of shape...

my 300L f4 IS is slightly lighter than the f2.8 IS and i find it more cumbersome than the 70-200L f4 IS.

where i can really tell is when i'm holding the camera up to my eye for long periods of time waiting for a shot.

heck my 24-70L is heavier than the 70-200L f4 IS and it's my walkaround so i find using the f4 IS a real joy and a break from my heavy lenses :D .

and i'm in pretty good shape for an OG ;) .

ed rader

[John7]

If you don't mind the weight and need the 2.8, why not sell your non-IS F4.0. That, plus the money you would have spent on the F4.0 IS will fund the F2.8 IS version.

That's what I did!

[SunTsu]

It's also the sharpest (not enough that it should sway your decision however) of the 70-200 lenses.

I'm not doubting this, but can you know any place where it's been compared to the other 70-200 lenses? I'm starting to think of one of the 70-200s and IQ is one of the most important to me (since I'm an admitted pixel peeper).

[cosworth]

I just traded my f/4 for a 2.8 and don't regret it at all. Don't forget, it's not 4 stops of IS. It's 4 shutter speeds as Canon explains. With the extra FULL stop the 2.8 gets, it's apples, apples, oranges and some cherries when comparing. The cameras they will mate to are hard to quantify differences.

If I had to give an answer to save the world, I'd say my 2.8 is sharper.

[august23]

If I had to give an answer to save the world, I'd say my 2.8 is sharper.

You just killed the world. Thanks alot.:D

From photozone:

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date. The lens was capable to deliver a near-flawless performance is all categories. The resolution figures are stunning regardless of the setting. Distortions, vignetting and CAs are nothing to worry about. The build quality is excellent with the new sealing as a another highlight. On top of that the lens now features a image stabilizer with an efficiency equivalent to 4 f-stops (at cost of shutter speed).

[cosworth]

If they got the 4 stops of light wrong, I wonder if they got everything else right. I kid, photozone is a good resource, but real world for people is what matters.

I wish I could have both lenses. That damn 2.8 is heavy...and I'm a weak old man.

[august23]

If they got the 4 stops of light wrong, I wonder if they got everything else right. I kid, photozone is a good resource, but real world for people is what matters.

I wish I could have both lenses. That damn 2.8 is heavy...and I'm a weak old man.

cmon Jason......67 isnt THAT old. ;)

[Jonathan]

Just got back from the shop with a brand new 70-200 f4 L IS :D I tried out the 2.8 as well (even had a play with the IS version) but the f4 just felt right. In another thread (about lenses people regretted buying) someone said that the 2.8 was their biggest regret due to the weight. Immediately I could see that being me and when I picked one up in the shop I was convinced that the weight would be an issue. Everyone has their own tolerances for what they are prepared to lug around and for me, the f4 was perfect.

Now I'm off out to play - the sun is shining and my lens is waiting :-) I will post something when I get back. Thanks to all for the advice and for steering me in the right direction.

[TBAATAR]

congrat, you made the right choice. For travelling (like me) the 70-200 F/4 series is the perfect 70-200 lens.

You can shoot 4-8 hours without any problem with the F/4 version, same can't be said with the Sigma/Canon f2.8 versions

[drjiveturkey]

Let me start by saying that I don't think I can justify the cost of a 70-200 f2.8 IS. So the choices I am left with are the f4 IS or f2.8 non IS. Does anyone have any experience of these two lenses or can help me with the pro's and cons? I shoot a lot of travel stuff, shoot inside museums and churches but don't shoot sports or wildlife. Any advice appreciated.

P.S. - the f4 non IS in my sig is on permanent loan to my wife :-(

I'd go with neither then. I think the 70-200 f2.8 IS is a better solution and justifies the cost especially in the settings you want to shoot in. Indoors at museums & churches you want a wide aperature & IS & zoom veratility is great.

Another option is to go with primes that have even bigger aperatures. 135 f/2, 85 f/1.8, 50 1.8 I think those are more ideal for indoor shooting

**EDIT** I guess I should have read though all the postings first. Didn't realize you already made a choice.

[Jonathan]

As promised:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/468024679_95b2b5fc0e.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/468008050_8125d18329.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/192/468008052_46fff5b2d9.jpg?v=0

[cosworth]

I'm now somewhat regretting my trade for a 2.8. Too much attention, too much weight and the f/4 IS is truly superior. I'll have to shoot some more with it...

[Jonathan]

I undertand why you made that choice - it's a hell of a lens. Weight was the deciding factor for me and I don't do the king of indoor shooting that requires that level of reack. My 17-55 2.8 IS now seems to be my indoor weapon of choice and my 2 f4 L's compete for outdoor use.

[hui__hui]

I'm facing the same dilemma as you do. I'm a petite female and weight is definitely an issue especially when I travel or hike. I initially intended to get 2.8 but after reading the comments above I'm now undecided.

[cosworth]

hui - f4. trust me.

[Luckie8]

Congrats!
I think I'm going with the f/4 IS too due to their weigh.
Where can I get them for good deal?

[Jonathan]

Congrats!
I think I'm going with the f/4 IS too due to their weigh.
Where can I get them for good deal?

Thanks :)

As for the deal, I suppose that depends on where you are based.

[darktiger]

How is the f/4 IS in low light shots, like in museums, churches and concerts?

[Fabrian]

I'm going to reply here rather than open a new thread as this one is exactly what I wanted to ask.

What I really want to know is this.. Is the f/4 IS good enough for overcast/heading into dusk/some indoor school gym shooting, or would I absolutely need a 2.8. I know for a while I'm going to be shooting softball and football, maybe some volleyball indoors. I've held and played with a 70-200 f4 IS at a local shop, but not the 2.8 non IS.

So again, is 2.8 absolutely necessary for the lower light/indoors or can I get a way with the f4?

[timnosenzo]

So again, is 2.8 absolutely necessary for the lower light/indoors or can I get a way with the f4?
All gyms are lit differently, but general consensus is that f/2.8 is necessary for indoor sports. IS can't make up for the extra shutter speed.

[Fabrian]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, I've just confused myself to no end. I know you all have talked about the 2.8 being heavy and somewhat inconvenient to lug around (especially as being the only long lens for a while). I also know that I would be shooting indoor sports probably 10% of the time...I guess it would depend on how important those 10% shots really are. What makes it a harder decision for me is there's a chance I may wind up making some money in the future at school events, even though I may not be needed to shoot indoors now. No way can I swing the cost of a 2.8 IS, and I wonder if it would be a huge pain in the ass to carry the 2.8 non IS around shooting for my own enjoyment.

I guess the logical thing to do is get the f4 IS and see what happens...if I really need the 2.8 then the f4 IS can be sold.... Where the "pull your hair out" emoticon..

[Pasukun]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, I've just confused myself to no end. I know you all have talked about the 2.8 being heavy and somewhat inconvenient to lug around (especially as being the only long lens for a while). I also know that I would be shooting indoor sports probably 10% of the time...I guess it would depend on how important those 10% shots really are. What makes it a harder decision for me is there's a chance I may wind up making some money in the future at school events, even though I may not be needed to shoot indoors now. No way can I swing the cost of a 2.8 IS, and I wonder if it would be a huge pain in the ass to carry the 2.8 non IS around shooting for my own enjoyment.

I guess the logical thing to do is get the f4 IS and see what happens...if I really need the 2.8 then the f4 IS can be sold.... Where the "pull your hair out" emoticon..

You will be just fine with 70-200 f/4 IS.
While many would say that f/4 is slow, it is still very acceptably good speed.
With some panning shot practice. You will be good to go. :)

[timnosenzo]

I also know that I would be shooting indoor sports probably 10% of the time...I guess it would depend on how important those 10% shots really are.

You hit the nail on the head there, really not much more to be said.

Thing is, its not just the weight, its the size. The f/2.8 is much bigger, and you may or may not be comfortable using a lens that large when out & about.

Here's a good size comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-70-200mm-L-Lens-Size-Comparison.jpg

Taken from the 70-200 f/4 IS review here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Another:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-70-200-Size-Comparison.jpg

[Fabrian]

Thanks for that info, and my apologies to lemminglover for hijacking this thread :oops:

Just hours ago I was about set on the F/4 IS.. needless to say I'm confused again. Maybe the right questions will give me the answers I'm looking for.

- Where does the usability of the F/4 IS fall short during indoor shooting, such as the
school gym I mentioned earlier (with no flash, and I do realize that the IS isn't going to help shooting a moving subject)?

- Can the F/4 IS be compensated for during low light with hi ISO?

- Is the bokeh that much different at F/4 from the F/2.8? (I do enjoy that bokeh :) )

I guess I'm just trying to unbalance the pros/cons of having IS vs F/2.8 in the event of the occasional low, or less than desirable lighting..because as of right now, I kind of feel that IS is just a important as 2.8 and as lemminglover originally posted, I can't have my cake and eat it too...atm anyway. But then again, we didn't always have IS..I feel like I'm in my kids shoes when I say to them, "Ya know, when I was a kid we actually had to use a pay phone or wait until we walked home to make a phone call.."

I could really care less about what people think as far as how big the white thing is hanging off the front of my camera.

For what it's worth, I'm also ordering a Tamron 17-50 along with whatever 70-200 lens I choose.

I think there's pills to make me stop doing this and go to bed....

[cosworth]

- Can the F/4 IS be compensated for during low light with hi ISO?



Three clicks of the ISO wheel and you're fine.

[_aravena]

All gyms are lit differently, but general consensus is that f/2.8 is necessary for indoor sports. IS can't make up for the extra shutter speed.

Ok...but speed stops objects. If you're in a museum or church, what you're shooting is probably not moving.

As I say this, I was thinking on getting F4 IS but I realize I need the speed for as much night shooting I do and it's not of people just standing. As it goes, lower F stop means stopping action and the IS helps your hand shake taking of still objects.

[cosworth]

ISO is adjustable people...

[timnosenzo]

ISO is adjustable people...

True, and I'm never one from shying away from pumping up the ISO. However, a few months ago I brought my 70-200 f/4L & Rebel XTi to the local ice skating rink to take pictures of my niece ice skating. I never shoot any kind of sports, let alone indoor sports, so I have never bought gear for that purpose. Inside the rink though, I had the ISO up to 1600, the aperture wide open, and even at 1/200 the pictures were a litttttle underexposed. But really, I was giving it all my camera could offer (even at 1/200 some of the pics suffered from motion blur, and its not an IS lens so I didn't think I should go slower than that), and if I didn't have the benefit of the little bit of ambient light coming in then it would be no pics for me.

So it sort of goes back to your question Fabrian, how important are these % of indoor shots for you?

[Fabrian]

(even at 1/200 some of the pics suffered from motion blur, and its not an IS lens so I didn't think I should go slower than that)

Do you think if your lens was an F4 IS your shots at 1600 - 1/200 would have been clear? and also, would you say that the lighting in the rink was what would normally be considered as a "low light" situation?

I've been to this local shop so many times without purchasing anything (looking and playing) that I feel like an ass tbh and don't want to go back anymore unless I do purchase something..lol. I wonder, since I'm ordering the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, maybe I should just order the 70-200 F4 IS and just see what the actual low light differences are after playing with them. I'm going to order from beach. Maybe if I find the F4 IS to be "not enough" I can always return it and get the other.

Sorry to all of you who sigh every time you see one of my posts that makes you guys keep running in circles for me..

[_aravena]

I can tell you 2.8 and 4 are a big difference. I was shooting at a carnival and my 18-50 F2.8 did great and captured some awesome shots but I know a 4 wouldn't even come close to what I got. Even when I used my 10-20 at 10 F4, the shutter was still slow and in better light than when I was shooting with the F2.8. IS wouldn't have helped me taking pics of my friends on rides because that's not what IS does.

Remember, the slow the shutter, the more time is allowed for your object to move or do something that's why IS wouldn't have help at the skating rink probably. Well, maybe at that speed, but overall, if someone is spinning, 'cause they do spin fast, any slower sure the ice would have been clear and anything else stationary but the person spinning maybe not. The IS just helps for hand shake at slower speeds.

[radiohead]

ISO is adjustable people...

Yes it is - but that f2.8 is worth it if you're pushed for light. Hell, I've shot weddings where ISO1600 and f2.8 has still only given me 1/50s. There can come a point when pushing ISO isn't ideal or possible.

My thoughts - both of them are optically superb, and it comes down to whether you're inside more than outside. Buy the right one for what you shoot and you'll be happy.

Personally there's no way I'd give up the f2.8 - I tried an f4 and it wasn't fast enough for what I shoot. The size and weight aren't a concern to be honest. If I shot more outside I'd have the f4, but I don't.

[timnosenzo]

Do you think if your lens was an F4 IS your shots at 1600 - 1/200 would have been clear? and also, would you say that the lighting in the rink was what would normally be considered as a "low light" situation?


I don't think anything less than 1/200 would have been able to freeze motion. Even in some of the pictures, motion blur is apparent. I would have been happier around 1/400 or so.

I'd say it was pretty well lit, and everything in there is basically white, so it reflects the light. In a basketball gymnasium where everything is brown, I think I would have been screwed. ;)

[petrolhead]

THE F/4 IS WITHOUT DOUBT :)

[JC4]

If you can live with the size/weight, get the 2.8 IS.

I didn't see any mention of TC's here. I use my 2.8 with a 1.4x TC regularly, which reduces it to a f4.0. The 4.0 would be slowed to a f5.6, and a 2x TC wouldn't be usable(no auto-focus).

The 2.8 may be larger, but it's more flexible since it gives you a fairly quick(f4.0) 300mm lens, and a reasonable f5.6 400mm lens.

[Fabrian]

Totally forgot about that, I do remember someone telling me about the F4 going to 5.6 with a 1.4x TC. You recommended the 2.8 IS, but this thread is between the 4.0 IS and the 2.8 non IS.

[websurfer]

If you are shooting sports - fast actions - get the f/2.8 version. If not - then get the EF 70-200 f/4 IS. Both are great lenses.

[Big Hands]

True, and I'm never one from shying away from pumping up the ISO. However, a few months ago I brought my 70-200 f/4L & Rebel XTi to the local ice skating rink to take pictures of my niece ice skating. I never shoot any kind of sports, let alone indoor sports, so I have never bought gear for that purpose. Inside the rink though, I had the ISO up to 1600, the aperture wide open, and even at 1/200 the pictures were a litttttle underexposed. But really, I was giving it all my camera could offer (even at 1/200 some of the pics suffered from motion blur, and its not an IS lens so I didn't think I should go slower than that), and if I didn't have the benefit of the little bit of ambient light coming in then it would be no pics for me.

So it sort of goes back to your question Fabrian, how important are these % of indoor shots for you?

This illustrates a major difference between the two lenses considered. It all depends on the lighting in a particular building, but an f/2.8 would have doubled the shutter speed to 1/400 which is about the minimum for possibly freezing action with any consistency (although 1/500 or better is ideal). The truth is that even f/2.8 can struggle in many indoor sports settings. Heck, f/1.8 struggles in MANY gyms. In almost all indoor sport settings, the f4 doesn't stand much chance of being useful.

If that's important to you, the f/2.8 is the logical choice. If you're not shooting sports indoors, but are shooting it outdoors, the f/4 can succeed, but IMHO, the f/2.8 still kicks it's rear in output (subjective, but I have owned both the f/4L and the f2.8L and shot sports with both).

The f2.8L will also take advatage of the high precision AF center sensor on the xxxD and xxD models where the f/4 does not. This will affect the keeper rate and the difference is noticeable when shooting sports.

If shooting sports isn't your thing you definitely have a different kettle of fish to consider, but if you are, in most (maybe not every, but most) cases the f/2.8 will be a noticeably better choice.

Regards,
Jeff

[Mike V]

Autofocus is better with f2.8 because it uses the extra focus points.

Also f4 makes the viewfinder dim.

Very good point raised about using the 1.4x extender.
The 70-200mm f2.8 is great with the 1.4x on.

Also remember that one stop is double the light.

f4 is too slow.

No pain (both financially and lugging it around), no gain.

[nicksan]

This is a perfect example where you occasionally run into conditions where you are hovering over the line...the f2.8 lens would have given him the same shot at ISO 800 or double the shutter speed (1/400) at ISO 1600, or something in-between.

I believe 1/400 would probably have been good enough to stop the motion blurr of the skater.

So in this SPECIFIC situation, the f2.8 would have helped.

You have to guess how many of these situations you will encounter.

If you only do 10% shooting in these conditions, I still say that the f4 IS will give you more versatility.

Just think about it this way...for your indoors museum shots, @200mm assuming, with the f2.8 non-IS you should be at 1/200, with the f4 IS you can shoot at 1/20 or even 1/12 hand-held.

That's versatility in my book!

True, and I'm never one from shying away from pumping up the ISO. However, a few months ago I brought my 70-200 f/4L & Rebel XTi to the local ice skating rink to take pictures of my niece ice skating. I never shoot any kind of sports, let alone indoor sports, so I have never bought gear for that purpose. Inside the rink though, I had the ISO up to 1600, the aperture wide open, and even at 1/200 the pictures were a litttttle underexposed. But really, I was giving it all my camera could offer (even at 1/200 some of the pics suffered from motion blur, and its not an IS lens so I didn't think I should go slower than that), and if I didn't have the benefit of the little bit of ambient light coming in then it would be no pics for me.

So it sort of goes back to your question Fabrian, how important are these % of indoor shots for you?

[_aravena]

Great explanation put well. It does have the versatility and that is the most important thing. Also, the amount of times you'll encounter certain shots.

I've been thinking like that for so long and I shoot so much it's hard to decipher where I shoot more. But I have a 2.8 and I can't imagine anything slower 'cause my 70-300 is bad enough if it weren't for the Florida sun being out so often.

If you're always outside and only occasionally have those indoor shots, throw on a flash or pray there' just enough light for a F4. It's the smarter buy and as Nick put it, highly versatile. The 2.8 will stop that motion and because it's a 2.8, you might not need the iS sometimes because of speed, but sometimes even a 2.8 needs IS (that's why it's there) and well, you got it.

[cosworth]

Real world, kids are easily photographable. I've shot superbikes, trapeze, boating, bmx, skateboarding, theatre, portraits blah blah. Indoor children seem pretty damn easy by comparision. Have you ever watched someone shoot with a 70-200 2.8 in a living room? It looks a little ridiculous.

Now here comes the point that I love to make - DOF

Assuming APS-C:

@ 70mm F/2.8 subject 2 metres away = 8cm of usable DOF.
@ 150mm F/2.8 subject 2 metres away = 2cm of usable DOF.
@ 200mm F/2.8 subject 3 metres away = 2cm of usable DOF.

2 to 8cm of DOF is damn small for a child that theoretically is moving at breakneck speeds. You better have a 1 series with kick a$$ AI-SERVO.

@ 70mm F/4 subject 2 metres away = 12cm of usable DOF.
@ 150mm F/4 subject 2 metres away = 2cm of usable DOF.
@ 200mm F/4 subject 3 metres away = 3cm of usable DOF.

As you can see, f/2.8 or f/4 doesn't really impact the usable DOF. You're going to be shooting at minimum f/4 or above with children or they will be blurry. Can you get a child to sit still, focus on his eye, compose, double check, breathe out and press the trigger?

Many people new to digital try so hard to avoid higher ISO and the evil noise that they shoot wide open all the time. Result is OOF shots (unusable DOF) that are useless compared to a shot with some noise. There is no "refocus" plug-in for CS...

Something I put in another thread. 1/200th, 1/500th are all well and good wide open. But your DOF indoors (close range) is so thin that most of your shot will be OOF.

@ 200mm F/4 subject 40 feet away = 1.8 feet of usable DOF.

Again you can see that for indoor sports 2.8 gains significantly. The F/4 for indoor sports (long distance range) suffers. But for close quarters as posted above, you'll see it's pointless to lug a 2.8 around a living room.

[Fabrian]

Well, I ordered the 70-200 2.8 non IS today along with a Tamron 17-50. I think I was still a bit undecided when I clicked "checkout", but for now I feel pretty good about it. Thinking about it a little more, 10% of the time shooting indoors seemed a bit too little. Probably more like 30 or 40% of the time with the kids and their sports all year round.

I'm sure if I decided that I really would like to have a F/4 IS then I could always return or sell the 2.8. One of you guys will buy it, right? ;)

I should have all of my gear Tuesday or Wednesday from beach..


Thanks so much for all of your help, I really appreciate it!