Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 26 Mar 2011 (Saturday) 15:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
Klamber
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
10 posts
Joined Mar 2011
     
Mar 26, 2011 15:30 |  #1

which galss and why ?

pls discuss
---------------
sry about the topic if it already existed. could not find any.


I am not always right, but I'm never wrong.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
viktorsundberg
Member
218 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Sweden
     
Mar 28, 2011 09:07 |  #2

Becasue 2,8 is still 2,8. If your subject is moving, you can have all the IS in the world, if you are one stop too slow, it will still become blurry. Also, DOF is better! What do you normally photograph? Do you need IS more than a larger aperture? Do you use tripods alot?


5D mk III | TS-E 17 f/4L | 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 100 f/2.8L Macro IS | 300 f/2.8L IS | 600 f/4L IS II | 1.4x III | 2x III | Gitzo tripods | RRS ballheads | Wimberley gimbal
Photographer and author from Sweden. Teacher at Canon and organizer of independent workshops. Visit my website: www.viktorsundberg.se (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
musashi
Senior Member
795 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Winchester, CA / San Diego, CA / North Hollywood, CA
     
Mar 28, 2011 09:31 |  #3

Klamber wrote in post #12097880 (external link)
which galss and why ?

pls discuss
---------------
sry about the topic if it already existed. could not find any.


Which glass for what? What body? For what purpose?


“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”

--==Gear List & Feedback==--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 502
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Mar 28, 2011 09:34 |  #4

Here ya go.

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Klamber
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
10 posts
Joined Mar 2011
     
Mar 28, 2011 09:37 |  #5

viktorsundberg wrote in post #12108194 (external link)
Becasue 2,8 is still 2,8. If your subject is moving, you can have all the IS in the world, if you are one stop too slow, it will still become blurry. Also, DOF is better! What do you normally photograph? Do you need IS more than a larger aperture? Do you use tripods alot?

60D
events without flash - poker tournaments etc.
lot of movement around the targets, dark lightning ...
I am not shure which is best - wide aperture or IS


I am not always right, but I'm never wrong.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Klamber
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
10 posts
Joined Mar 2011
     
Mar 28, 2011 09:38 |  #6

thx! will read them right away :)


I am not always right, but I'm never wrong.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
musashi
Senior Member
795 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Winchester, CA / San Diego, CA / North Hollywood, CA
     
Mar 28, 2011 09:39 |  #7

You already answered it. 2.8 is what you will probably need since you say dark lighting. IS cant stop movements.


“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”

--==Gear List & Feedback==--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Mar 28, 2011 11:15 |  #8

But IS can stop camera shake. So, let's say shooting at ISO3200, 1/160s, f2.8.... Fast enough to stop casual motion but not fast enoguh to prevent camera shake. And if an F2 existed, it would not give enough DOF at 200mm, most likely,...so faster does not always mean better in low light. And IS is very useful in lower light when shutter speeds or on the bordeline between freezing action and freezing camera movement.

I would not buy a longer lens that does not have IS if you often shoot in difficult (lower) light levels.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,494 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 1530
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Mar 28, 2011 11:23 |  #9

^^ Agree there. I know cost is prohibitive for a lot, but for the situations you're describing the 2.8 IS is the lens you'll be needing.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gotaudi
Senior Member
720 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Southern California
     
Mar 28, 2011 11:25 |  #10

Try out the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS its about the same price as the ones you listed, it has amazing image quality and the Optical stabilizer really helps out with camera shake in low light conditions. seriously its that good.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paddler4
Goldmember
Avatar
1,319 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2009
     
Mar 28, 2011 11:36 as a reply to  @ gotaudi's post |  #11

IS cant stop movements

No, but a one stop increase in ISO can give you the same shutter speed, at the cost of a little more noise. The tradeoffs are pretty clear, I think. The 4.0:

--costs a lot less
--is smaller
--weighs less than half as much (heft one before you buy)
--costs you a stop

So my take on it is that if you really need the extra speed or shallower DOF, the 2.8 is the way to go, but if those are less important than weight and $$ for other things, it's a bad choice. I use mine mostly hiking or with flash, and I was not concerned about narrower DOF, so the choice was clear--I bought the 4.0 and have never regretted it. For other uses, it would be different. E.g., one person I know does a lot of indoor candids without flash. For her, the weight and $$ of the 2.8 is well worth it.


Check out my photos at http://dkoretz.smugmug​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikestarr
Senior Member
Avatar
370 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Charlotte, nc
     
Mar 28, 2011 11:45 |  #12

paddler4 wrote in post #12109189 (external link)
No, but a one stop increase in ISO can give you the same shutter speed, at the cost of a little more noise. The tradeoffs are pretty clear, I think. The 4.0:

--costs a lot less
--is smaller
--weighs less than half as much (heft one before you buy)
--costs you a stop

So my take on it is that if you really need the extra speed or shallower DOF, the 2.8 is the way to go, but if those are less important than weight and $$ for other things, it's a bad choice. I use mine mostly hiking or with flash, and I was not concerned about narrower DOF, so the choice was clear--I bought the 4.0 and have never regretted it. For other uses, it would be different. E.g., one person I know does a lot of indoor candids without flash. For her, the weight and $$ of the 2.8 is well worth it.

cant really argue with that...always wondered about the sigma spoken about above also though.


T2i Gripped/17-50 non vc Tamron/55-250mm 4-5.6/50mm 1.8/Slik pro 700dx tripod
MYFLICKR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
musashi
Senior Member
795 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Winchester, CA / San Diego, CA / North Hollywood, CA
     
Mar 28, 2011 12:12 |  #13

bohdank wrote in post #12109042 (external link)
But IS can stop camera shake. So, let's say shooting at ISO3200, 1/160s, f2.8.... Fast enough to stop casual motion but not fast enoguh to prevent camera shake. And if an F2 existed, it would not give enough DOF at 200mm, most likely,...so faster does not always mean better in low light. And IS is very useful in lower light when shutter speeds or on the bordeline between freezing action and freezing camera movement.

I would not buy a longer lens that does not have IS if you often shoot in difficult (lower) light levels.

paddler4 wrote in post #12109189 (external link)
No, but a one stop increase in ISO can give you the same shutter speed, at the cost of a little more noise. The tradeoffs are pretty clear, I think. The 4.0:

--costs a lot less
--is smaller
--weighs less than half as much (heft one before you buy)
--costs you a stop

So my take on it is that if you really need the extra speed or shallower DOF, the 2.8 is the way to go, but if those are less important than weight and $$ for other things, it's a bad choice. I use mine mostly hiking or with flash, and I was not concerned about narrower DOF, so the choice was clear--I bought the 4.0 and have never regretted it. For other uses, it would be different. E.g., one person I know does a lot of indoor candids without flash. For her, the weight and $$ of the 2.8 is well worth it.



I agree with you guys, that's why I have the f4 IS. :D

I only said 2.8 because he said moving subjects adn dark lighting, he didnt really say how fast and how dark. so i just started assuming. lol.


“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”

--==Gear List & Feedback==--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 502
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Mar 28, 2011 12:25 |  #14

I think the 2.8 non IS is amazing but if I was buying today I would probably go for the F4 IS too.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
viktorsundberg
Member
218 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Sweden
     
Mar 29, 2011 01:58 |  #15

paddler4 wrote in post #12109189 (external link)
No, but a one stop increase in ISO can give you the same shutter speed, at the cost of a little more noise. The tradeoffs are pretty clear, I think. The 4.0:

--costs a lot less
--is smaller
--weighs less than half as much (heft one before you buy)
--costs you a stop

So my take on it is that if you really need the extra speed or shallower DOF, the 2.8 is the way to go, but if those are less important than weight and $$ for other things, it's a bad choice. I use mine mostly hiking or with flash, and I was not concerned about narrower DOF, so the choice was clear--I bought the 4.0 and have never regretted it. For other uses, it would be different. E.g., one person I know does a lot of indoor candids without flash. For her, the weight and $$ of the 2.8 is well worth it.

You are comparing quality with convenience. Why would you trade more noise for less weight? To me, that sounds illogical. Two of the variables you are comparing are related to convenience, one is a cost issue (which of course is important for most people). The only thing that really matters to me is if you need that extra stop or not. When reading Klambers desription of what he is shooting, it really sounds like an extra stop would be a good thing. However, poker is not really like boxing when it comes to movement, so maybe the IS would work too :)

I actually had the f/4 IS at first but after a few trips and low light wildlife photography I found pretty quickly that I really needed that extra stop. You don't always want to compromise with more noise either. So I sold it and got the 2,8 IS II. Ok, it's a damn expensive lens, but it is very good and I think it's worth the money.


5D mk III | TS-E 17 f/4L | 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 100 f/2.8L Macro IS | 300 f/2.8L IS | 600 f/4L IS II | 1.4x III | 2x III | Gitzo tripods | RRS ballheads | Wimberley gimbal
Photographer and author from Sweden. Teacher at Canon and organizer of independent workshops. Visit my website: www.viktorsundberg.se (external link)

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

4,152 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 f2,8 vs 70-200 f4 IS
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Alymbek Usenov
1527 guests, 340 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.