Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 11 Aug 2016 (Thursday) 21:34
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Finally doing it: deciding between 70-200 f/2.8 II and f/4 IS

 
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,090 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Aug 22, 2016 16:46 |  #76

AlanU wrote in post #18102863 (external link)
I'm not trying to force feed you Fujifilm :) Just mentioning alternatives for weight loss.

The first 1/3 of this link is my fuji x-t10 with 55-200 zoom. All of the UWA/wide angle photos was from my canon 5dmk2 w/ 16-35f/2.8mk2. The fuji took care of most of my long telephoto needs and I was not putting emphasis on super shallow dof. Last weekends epic VW event I wanted to capture the moment unlike posed photos. This is where I surprised myself in how my feather weight Fuji was amazing.

To be honest i did pull out my 5d3/70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 combo because of an impromptu "recently married" couples portrait photo.....as I was documenting the VW show in Vancouver's gorgeous falsecreek area. The Canon is still my comfort go to system for serious sessions.

http://www.alanuyenoph​otography.com/p3902000​54 (external link)

I'm afraid to link this page because I uploaded long edge 2048 to down res the files to my website (speed up upload transfer). IQ wise the 55-200 can provide nice IQ like my previous Canon 70-200 f/2.8IS mk1 (minus the shallower dof). Yesterday's (last weekends) As I documented 2 days with the Fuji body I was very impressed with the "cheaper" long telephoto lens. As a matter of fact if I compare IQ of my 5dmk2 w/ 100-400L mk1 I'd take a shorter 55-200 fuji combo with no regrets. The Fuji lush/rich sharp images would destroy my perfect 100-400L mk1 copy by a huge margin.

The 55-200 is a ballpark of 82-300mm if you compare it to FF.

If I knew how to upload uncompressed images onto this site I'll post some examples.

Might want to calibrate your monitor.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
dochollidayda
Goldmember
Joined Aug 2012
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by dochollidayda. 2 edits done in total.
Aug 22, 2016 18:15 |  #77

As good as the 70-200 MK II is, its weight has never been able to justify its need in my kit. I am not a PRO or even a skilled photographer, for what I do 70-200 F4L IS has never let me down. If the MKII was 20-30% heavier, I'd definitely drop the F4LIS for it, its whopping double. My whole kit weighs less than that lens alone.

Sometimes I browse through the 70-200 MK II thread and all I see is photos of babies, fresh fruit and cats :D Don't get me wrong, but I rarely see something that makes my jaw drop in awe. I wonder how many people have that lens simply due to its reputation and don't have the need or skill to use it properly.

Good for them I guess...

To each their own. Have fun while at it everyone, that's the most important part of photography.


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,090 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Aug 22, 2016 18:43 |  #78

For me it was an easy choice. Own both... or own both. Also if it meant I had to have the F4 IS in order to keep the 200 F2 well then consider it done. bye bye 2.8


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,558 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2011
Central New Jersey
Aug 22, 2016 19:51 |  #79

mike_d wrote in post #18102831 (external link)
I think its more like 1/3rd the weight.

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II weighs 1490g
The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM weighs 760g

The f/4 version is 51% of the weight of the f/2.8 version, very slightly more than half.


Mark
Canon 7D II, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, and 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM. Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, Lightroom 6, Elements 15

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Aug 22, 2016 23:22 |  #80

Talley wrote in post #18103009 (external link)
Might want to calibrate your monitor.

My monitor is calibrated! My professional photo lab uses a Noritsu wet lab and my monitor at home virtually has identical colours when I print.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Aug 22, 2016 23:40 |  #81

Talley wrote in post #18103120 (external link)
For me it was an easy choice. Own both... or own both. Also if it meant I had to have the F4 IS in order to keep the 200 F2 well then consider it done. bye bye 2.8

I think your missing the point of the 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2. Versatility wins over a prime in many cases in real life run/gun situations.

Certainly the 200 f/2IS is nice but if your doing a static/slow moving portrait session the 200 f/2IS is great as you yell 50+ feet away from your subjects on a consistent basis. My 70-200 mk2 is a great tool especially when I'm doing a family session. If you have a space limitation in a beautiful location I've had to go on the wider end of the 70-200 or I'd fall off a nature trail/edge or hit a wall/rock face. This is where having a long prime would prevent you from getting some photographic opportunities.

Talley you've expressed your camera gear application for family non professional documentation etc..... When I shoot semi-professionally I leave gear talk aside and must deliver results with absolutely no excuses. For family documentation or serious critical photos as I run/gun I'd take high quality prime like quality in a versatile zoom. Depending on the situation I'll sometimes use my primes etc. It all depends on the situation.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Aug 23, 2016 01:26 |  #82

Charlie wrote in post #18102950 (external link)
If he wants to lose some weight, Sony is the way not fuji  :p

70-300G > 55-200
low/high ISO > 5D3 > fuji
AF > Fuji, however fuji may have caught up
IBIS > nothing for lowlight
Eye AF > all
Can use canon lenses with good AF in a pinch.

The Sony A7mk2 would be a relatively affordable FF small bodied camera.

Charlie I'm still a wussy :) I can't drop all of my Canon line to go Sony. To get top notch IQ I'd need to go higher end sony f/2.8 zoom$$$$$

I need to buy a Fuji X-T2 before I make a final decision on sticking with Fuji. So far my 7 and 9 yrs old daughters love using my fuji bodies so I know I'm sticking with fuji in my household :)


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Nick5's Avatar
2,893 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Philadelphia Suburbs
Aug 23, 2016 04:53 |  #83

Something tells me Michael is going to "Buy Twice"...............


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,090 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Aug 23, 2016 06:08 |  #84

AlanU wrote in post #18103322 (external link)
My monitor is calibrated! My professional photo lab uses a Noritsu wet lab and my monitor at home virtually has identical colours when I print.

Ah gotcha. Maybe it's my calibrated monitor then, seems like there was alot more brightness on your photos of that car event. I need to recheck mine tonight then.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,090 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Aug 23, 2016 06:09 |  #85

AlanU wrote in post #18103332 (external link)
I think your missing the point of the 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2. Versatility wins over a prime in many cases in real life run/gun situations.

Certainly the 200 f/2IS is nice but if your doing a static/slow moving portrait session the 200 f/2IS is great as you yell 50+ feet away from your subjects on a consistent basis. My 70-200 mk2 is a great tool especially when I'm doing a family session. If you have a space limitation in a beautiful location I've had to go on the wider end of the 70-200 or I'd fall off a nature trail/edge or hit a wall/rock face. This is where having a long prime would prevent you from getting some photographic opportunities.

Talley you've expressed your camera gear application for family non professional documentation etc..... When I shoot semi-professionally I leave gear talk aside and must deliver results with absolutely no excuses. For family documentation or serious critical photos as I run/gun I'd take high quality prime like quality in a versatile zoom. Depending on the situation I'll sometimes use my primes etc. It all depends on the situation.

I get it. The 70-200 comes out for birthdays and such or when I do portraits and don't want to mess with swapping lenses the 70-200 does great.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
MatthewK
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
MatthewK's Avatar
Joined Apr 2009
Maryland
Aug 23, 2016 07:14 |  #86

Nick5 wrote in post #18103458 (external link)
Something tells me Michael is going to "Buy Twice"...............

You're probably right, considering that in the past I have purchased/sold a 24-70 variant 4 times now :oops:


flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,467 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 23, 2016 08:23 |  #87

AlanU wrote in post #18103391 (external link)
The Sony A7mk2 would be a relatively affordable FF small bodied camera.

Charlie I'm still a wussy :) I can't drop all of my Canon line to go Sony. To get top notch IQ I'd need to go higher end sony f/2.8 zoom$$$$$

I need to buy a Fuji X-T2 before I make a final decision on sticking with Fuji. So far my 7 and 9 yrs old daughters love using my fuji bodies so I know I'm sticking with fuji in my household :)

That's why Sony is totally awesome, you don't have to go all in, body + metabones + 1 native cheap lens like the FE 50/1.8 to get your feet wet, they don't force you to switch. Pretty much any canon lens will AF and track with Sony, native lens will get you even more abilities like eye focus, lock on AF. G lenses have a custom button on the lenses for additional mapping.

High end 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 85 f1.4, yup, Sony has it. Small lightweight lenses? Plenty of those too. Only thing is the price, being fairly new, it's expensive. In a few years, I imagine prices will fall just like canon stuff. They already have on their older lenses.

It's great having just one system to deal with, so simple. I can do small, I can match big, best of both worlds.


Sony A7r - A7ii - A7rii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CY 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by AlanU.
Aug 23, 2016 08:39 |  #88

Talley wrote in post #18103487 (external link)
Ah gotcha. Maybe it's my calibrated monitor then, seems like there was alot more brightness on your photos of that car event. I need to recheck mine tonight then.

No your correct....some photos are on the hotter side of exposure. I'm the official photographer for this event but also overly generous pro bono as a club member. Maybe around 1700 photos reduced to a smaller number as I post process. Sucks to shoot close to 10hrs (x2) then post process for the local / world viewing of my images to get a feel of the show. Man if I only had to edit a couple hundred I'd have more luxury of time to edit ...but sadly I do not.

Early day lighting also may be on the accurate cooler side of the kelvin.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,511 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Aug 24, 2016 21:52 |  #89

I have a unique set up for the 200mm focal length. I have the 70-200mm f4 IS, and also the 200mm 2.8 prime. For general shooting I'll take the zoom. For sports, low light activities, and beautiful bokeh, I'll grab the prime (which is a whole lot smaller & lighter than the 2.8 zoom).




LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Joined Aug 2010
Toronto, Canada
Aug 25, 2016 18:01 |  #90

nightcat wrote in post #18105236 (external link)
I have a unique set up for the 200mm focal length. I have the 70-200mm f4 IS, and also the 200mm 2.8 prime. For general shooting I'll take the zoom. For sports, low light activities, and beautiful bokeh, I'll grab the prime (which is a whole lot smaller & lighter than the 2.8 zoom).

Actually, I think this is a great strategy. Have smaller f/4 zooms and complement them with primes where needed. I have the 200mm f/2.8 and love it.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

9,353 views & 29 likes for this thread
Finally doing it: deciding between 70-200 f/2.8 II and f/4 IS
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00184 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is Ginn
991 guests, 465 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016