If I only shoot F4 and above, is there benefit in 70-2002.8?

[Adam Hicks]

I'm thinking a quick fix for daytime motorsports events. I've shot a few recently and have been really pleased with the results (with the help of some of this board's members.) Shooting at 1/125, 1/160 or so in Tv I've been able to get my panning down nicely (elbows in!) but I need a little more reach to add to my 28-75 2.8, and my 100 2.8. I can swing the 70-200 2.8, but most of the shooting I'd do above 100mm is usually well above F4.

So my question is, would I see other differences from both lenses at say F8? I can save quite a bit of money (and buy a 70-200 f4 and a wide angle L) for the price of the 70-200 2.8.

Please also consider this as an 'all outdoor use' question... maybe the lower weight of the F4 would be advantageous as well?

Thanks!
Adam

[Pekka]

If you think you'll never use 2.8, 3.2 or 3.5 then 4.0 version will be perfect for your use. They are equal in quality, see http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/canon.shtml#Canon for more detail.

[Cadwell]

Optically the 70-200mm f/4.0 is every bit as good (some might argue it’s better) than it’s f/2.8 brothers. I would suggest that for motor sport even the EF 70-200mm is a little short and if you can afford it, you might be better off looking at the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS.

Another alternative would be to get the 70-200mm f/4.0 and a 1.4xTC. That combination works well and you will still have AF on a 300D.

[Belmondo]

I agree with Pekka. If you don't need the extra speed and IS, why drag around all the extra weight? (and why spend all that extra money?)

I have both lenses (f/4 and f/2.8 IS). I find myself using the f/4 almost exclusively, especially in full daylight. I actually believe mine is a little sharper than the 2.8. Dunno'

Tom

[Rebel]

On the strength of Caldwell and Kenny G's advice, I picked up a 70-200 f4 yesterday. It is a fabulous piece of glass. I also use it for motor sport and available light shots. You wont regret the purchase.

[Adam Hicks]

Thanks guys... that's exactly what I was HOPING you'd say :) I think I'll go the route of the 70-200f4 + 1.4TC. Luckily for me, the motorsports events I've been shooting have been with press passes and in the infield (actually in the center of the track in media stations) so I'm close to the action. I just don't expect to be that lucky at every event, so I want to have the longer focal range covered.

I WILL have the 100-400l sooner than later, I'm just not ready for push/pull zoom yet :) (ok so I don't have the money.)

Thanks again,
Adam

[Rebel]

Can I ask you what you think of your 100mm 2.8 Macro lens? is it good for general use asides from macro work? It is on my lshortist of lenses to buy. Would you shoot cars with it?

[hmhm]

The only obvious potential downside is AF, the f/2.8 will AF with a 2X tele-converter on a 300D, while the f/4 won't (though it will with a 1.4x TC). The f/2.8 may AF better in low-light as well.
-harry

[Belmondo]

It's a very good lens. I've never tried shooting cars with it, but there's really no reason not to believe it wouldn't perform admirably. I think 100mm might be a little short for motorsports, but the quality will be fine.

Tom

[Adam Hicks]

Hey Rebel, I'd only use it if you can get in pretty close to the action. It certainly focused quick enough to be useful, and does a great job. It really does better for shooting still subject shots. It has a fantastic bokeh at 2.8 for it's length... never ceases to amaze me. Highly recommended lens if you can score one.

Adam

[Rebel]

Thanks, Adam. I know basically nothing about macro photography but am quite keen to learn. perhaps I could start a new topic because this is straying a little far from your original post. If you have time, I'd really appreciate your advice. Check the main index for EOS digital.

[DocFrankenstein]

I beleive that f/4 is a sharper piece of optics. Common sense suggests that... is it easier to make a device with 12 precise elements or 18? (or something like that)

It also focuses faster...

[SENster7]

When I was debating over which to get recently, I decided to get the 70-200 f/2.8 over the f/4.0. I just know how I am, if I got the f/4.0 I would have wished I got the f/2.8, now that I got the f/2.8, I wish I would have opted for f/2.8 IS. Maybe I'm just never satisfied, but I have shot at f/2.8 and I absolutely love the lens and happy that I spent more and not regret it later. Remember, it's an investment...

[evilenglishman]

question:
wouldn't the 2.8 give better image quality when knocked down to f4, than the f4 lens wide open?

[DocFrankenstein]

question:
wouldn't the 2.8 give better image quality when knocked down to f4, than the f4 lens wide open?
f/4 wide open will be sharper

[evilenglishman]

why?

[Belmondo]

Hopelessly confused. Today, I discovered 3 more things to be confused about.

Or was it four? :lol:

You've inspired me to make such a comparison of the two lenses. I'd be curious to know if your response was an opinion, or a statement of fact based on personal knowledge. Also, was that throughout the focal range? Or was it an one end or the other (long or short)?

Tom

[DocFrankenstein]

Opinion mostly... Number of elements... As I said, assuming the quality controls are the same as both of them are L, the f/4 is much easier to construct from both optical and mechanical POV...

And I think I've seen some article comparing them on a 1Ds sensor and 2.8 was sharper... But I'm not sure anymore...