70-200 f2.8 or f4???

[the7ferret]

What are the benfits of getting the f2.8 vs. f4
Ovibiously the apature but what shooting conditions would warrent the extra f/stops?

I do mostly outdoor, nature, landscape, architecture...

Should I get the f4 or save up and get the f2.8
I already have the 24-70 f2.8 on my wish list.
Opinions?

[FlipsidE]

If you do mostly outdoor, nature, landscape, and architecture, then I'd say the f/4 should be plenty. The only time the f/2.8 would be handy would be if you did a lot of low light action shots of animals. If most of your shots are taken during the times when the sun is usually out and shining brightly, f/4 should be plenty. Even for low light stills, if you have a tripod, you really shouldn't have a problem with the f/4. If you do use a tripod a good bit, though, I'd probably make sure to get the tripod ring for the 70-200 f/4 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=186247&is=REG) also.

FlipsidE

[René Damkot]

You'ld only need the f/2.8 for the shallower depth of field or indeed in low light situations. Also when you plan on using a TC, the 2.8 might be a better option. Other than that, save the $ and go for the f/4

[Sketcher]

As mentioned; If you don't need the low light capability than go with the f/4.

I sold mine to afford the f/2.8 IS and though I don't regret buying the latter, I do regularly miss the light weight and smaller size of the f/4. I upgraded to the f/2.8L IS because I found myself shooting more in lower light. Well, and because I got a good deal. Otherwise i'd still be shooting f/4.

Your stated subject is outdoors and most likely in fairly decent light. So, the extra stop (and or IS if you were even thinking that route) wouldn't likely be of cost value per function. A nice thing about "L" and by my own f/4 to f/2.8 experience is that the resale value holds well so you'll not likely regret starting out with the f/4.

*Also do some searching in this forum regarding the topic. Lots of detail from enthusiasts who've traveled this path. The "Similar Topics" box near the bottom of the page might have a link or two to further the interest.

70-200 f/4L

Pros:
Build Quality: "L"
Image Quality: Sharp/Contrasty/ Really nice, Smooth Bokeh.
AF: Silent & very fast.
Weight: Surprisingly light weight - excellent balance/ form factor on a 10D w/grip or 1 Series.

Cons:
f/4 limiting factor in lower light conditions.
As good as it is; it doesn't stop you from wanting bigger, better, faster...

[pcasciola]

Should I get the f4 or save up and get the f2.8If you'd have to save up to get the 2.8 or 2.8 IS anyway, go for the f4. Then if you decide you need the 2.8, you could sell the 2.8 for about $50-75 less than you bought it for, assuming you get it new for around $580. If you decide in six months you need the 2.8, you've just rented the f/4 for about $3 a week, not a bad deal.

[johnellisphotography]

I have owned the 2.8 in the past and currently have the F4. Its really light weight and very "friendly" to use on a 10D or 20D. I actually enjoy taking it outside whereas the 2.8 was kinda heavy. The image quality is the same between the two IMO and the only thing i miss about the 2.8 is the slightly shallower depth of field. I get around that by simply getting in closer to the focal point and changing the distance ratio between the subject and background.

[Persian-Rice]

Here is an example. I shoot quite a bit of hockey. Boy did the F/4 give me problems in the arena. As soon as I switched to f/2.8, about 90% of my images were usable(in terms of focus and no blur). Where as with the f/4 I could maybe get 30%-50% of my shots perfectly usable. The wider aperture is very important in any indoor situation. Then you also have the shallower depth.

The 2.8 is much bigger and heavier. The images are the same, the f/4 actually might be sharper if you nitpick, but they are so close that there is no difference really. If you shoot outdoors only, then get the F/4 but if you plan on using it inside, you better have a tripod, and forget most indoor sports.

[Citizensmith]

Here is an example. I shoot quite a bit of hockey. Boy did the F/4 give me problems in the arena. As soon as I switched to f/2.8, about 90% of my images were usable(in terms of focus and no blur). Where as with the f/4 I could maybe get 30%-50% of my shots perfectly usable. The wider aperture is very important in any indoor situation. Then you also have the shallower depth.

The 2.8 is much bigger and heavier. The images are the same, the f/4 actually might be sharper if you nitpick, but they are so close that there is no difference really. If you shoot outdoors only, then get the F/4 but if you plan on using it inside, you better have a tripod, and forget most indoor sports.

Like he said, the f/4 and f/2.8 are optically equal. The f/4 is way easier to carry around, but in challenging situations the f/4 will be missing a little before the f/2.8. Depends how much of the time you are in low light and wanting a 70-200.

And then there is the 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8. If you can live without a zoom these are all very good lenses, optically a little better than the zooms, and somewhat faster/cheaper.

[DaveG]

What are the benfits of getting the f2.8 vs. f4
Ovibiously the apature but what shooting conditions would warrent the extra f/stops?

I do mostly outdoor, nature, landscape, architecture...

Should I get the f4 or save up and get the f2.8
I already have the 24-70 f2.8 on my wish list.
Opinions?

Speed in a lens of this focal length is always important to me. The things that you are likely to be shooting are also likely to be moving fast and that extra stop of shutterspeed or lower ISO can come in handy. If you do any work in the woods you will know that it's dark in there. The leaf canopy knocks off way too much light and in there that 2.8 may well be the only way that you'll get the shot.

I have the 70-200 f2.8L without IS. I thought hard about the IS version and it would be nice to have but I always use a monopod with this lens and since I'll need faster shutterspeeds for subject if not camera movement, then I can rationalize the non IS version. And with the bucks I saved I got another very nice lens, well at least part of it.