70-200mm F4 vs F2.8

[drisley]

Just wondering, does anyone have any examples at how much more you can isolate a subject with the 70-200mm F2.8 lens compared to using F4 (ie, more background blur).
I am selling my F4 to get the F2.8 for low light ability, but also isolation ability, especially at 200mm.
Does that extra stop make much of a diff?
TIA

[DocFrankenstein]

I have no idea about the differences, but I'm intrested in f/4

How much? Where are you located?

[Persian-Rice]

I have no idea about the differences, but I'm intrested in f/4

How much? Where are you located?

Sorry Drisley, I cant help you with that.
But Doc, look in "marketplace", he has a post and I'm sure he lives in Ontario eh!

[drisley]

Thanks PR

[who10]

Hi drisley,

My daughter decided to help you out... 200mm

Here's with a 70-200f4L at f4 :

http://www.haskellct.com/photos/70_200F4.jpg

Here's with a 70-200f2.8L IS at f2.8:

http://www.haskellct.com/photos/70_200F28.jpg

Hope that helps... David


(Removed embedded image in lieu of direct links...)

[drisley]

Wow thanks who10! :D
That really does help.
Both pictures are very nice, and they both isolate the subject nicely.
I assume that the F2.8 will help even more when you are further back from the subject.

Thanks again.

[who10]

You're welcome... I took these two pics quickly primarily to demonstrate the difference between the two lenses at equal distances. I have better example of f2.8 (24-70L) subject isolation at this link:

http://www.haskellct.com/EE_Galleries/Gallery1/photo.php?photo=448&exhibition=9&pass=public&size= default&lang=eng

Anyway, glad the references helped.... David

[drisley]

Those are some fantastic shots!
The butterfly picture is simply amazing. Great job!
Btw, does the f2.8 IS feel like a tank compared to the f4?
I find the f4 to be very nice and light with my Rebel and Grip.
No complaints at all there.

Darn I wish the stores around here had stock so I could just walk in and see/feel for myself! :roll:

[who10]

Thanks for the compliments; the tiger and butterfly are indeed my favorites. I enjoyed the option of renting the 70-200f2.8 IS to see if I liked it (weight was a concern for me as well...). A year later I bought a copy for myself... never once regretted it - it is a truly wonderful lens. As for your question - let's just say it's incredibly well balanced :wink: , it's comfort is expressed in personal satisfaction after the shoot (which is why I keep the f4!). Did I mention that it weighs in as a tank compared to it's cousin?

David

[DocFrankenstein]

Btw, does the f2.8 IS feel like a tank compared to the f4?
It's probably not that bad, but it's almost twice as heavy:

705 g vs 1310g

http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=3&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1&ep age=specifications
http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=238&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1& epage=specifications

[ijohnson]

I know that you are looking for a picture however the Canon Camera Museum has depth of field tables for both of the lenses mentioned so you can get a real idea of exactly what the difference is. I have the 2.8 but would claim that it is negligible, depending on the application obviously.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html

Check it out if you even want to know the fraction difference.

Love that extra stop of light though, WHOOOHOO!!