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 06 May 2012 (Sunday) 00:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

canon 70-200 f4 IS vs canon 70-200 f2.8ii IS

 
inspectoring
Member
207 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2011
     
May 06, 2012 00:05 |  #1

would there be a difference in image quality if all was same at f4 70mm ?

Do I really need this lens if I am taking pictures of my little kids in daytime? I do realize that once they grow up and go to kindergarden and are indoors I would need f 2.8 but for what I am doing now - can I get away with flash ?


Gear: 7D, Canon 70-200 f8 MK II, 70-200 f4 IS, 24-70 f2.8 and Sigmalux 50 f1.4 Flash: 580EXii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mo5751
Senior Member
312 posts
Joined Oct 2011
     
May 06, 2012 01:05 |  #2

If u have the dough!!! get the mark II no regrets there otherwise get the f4 and youll be happy trust. If your not you can resell later for almost as much as you paid for it




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceriltheblade
Goldmember
2,484 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2007
Location: middle east
     
May 06, 2012 02:18 |  #3

actually, as far as I understand, the two at the same levels are very close to each other. (i don't have both of them, but that is what i remmeber reading from other posts)


7D/5dIII
50 1.8 II, MP-E65, 85 II, 100 IS
8-15 FE, 10-22, 16-35 IS, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS, 100-400 ii, tamron 28-75 2.8
600 ex-rt, 055xproB/488rc2/Sirui k40x, kenko extens tubes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xenophobe
Member
116 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
May 06, 2012 02:26 |  #4

All of the 70-200L's are great. Pick the one that suits your budget and needs. Don't discount the 70-300L. It doesn't have a fixed aperture but it does have 100mm more reach, is smaller, has the newest design, and is supposedly sharper than the 70-200 w/TC. I wouldn't buy the 70-200 over the 70-300 mainly because of size and what you get at the long end. The 70-200's are sharper in their range, but not by much... at least not enough for me to justify a bigger lens with shorter reach.


■ Canon 5D MkII ■ 14LII ■ 35L ■ 85LII ■ 100L ■ 24-105L ■ 70-300L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 06, 2012 04:55 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

i used to own the f4 IS too and now the 2.8mkII. I don't think there's much difference @ f4 70mm.

You buy the 2.8 when you need 2.8. If you can live with f4, there's no reason to upgrade.


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cfvisuals
Senior Member
866 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
     
May 06, 2012 05:00 |  #6

kin2son wrote in post #14386949 (external link)
i used to own the f4 IS too and now the 2.8mkII. I don't think there's much difference @ f4 70mm.

You buy the 2.8 when you need 2.8. If you can live with f4, there's no reason to upgrade.

I am debating on whether to get 70-200mm 2.8 IS II or go with Sigma 85mm F1.4 + 70-200mm F4 IS.
What do you think? Any opinion?
I am not sure if f4 enough (even with IS) for indoor.
I rarely pull out a 70-200 indoor though. Then that makes me ponder is it pointless to get IS if what I do mostly is controlled lighting portrait.


flickr (external link)
5∞ portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 06, 2012 05:07 |  #7
bannedPermanent ban

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #14386956 (external link)
I am debating on whether to get 70-200mm 2.8 IS II or go with Sigma 85mm F1.4 + 70-200mm F4 IS.
What do you think? Any opinion?
I am not sure if f4 enough (even with IS) for indoor.
I rarely pull out a 70-200 indoor though. Then that makes me ponder is it pointless to get IS if what I do mostly is controlled lighting portrait.

Well I sold my 135L + Sigma 85 for the 2.8mkII. I don't really regret it as I was using my 135L a lot more outdoor than the Sigma, for indoor I find them both too long anyway and rarely get used.

IS is useful for stablizing when shooting on the long end, it stablizes the VF when handholding for portrait. So it's definitely worth it imo.

I think the range on the zoom is more than enough to compensate the (rather slow) aperture vs the Sigma.

But i know you love shooting wide open ;) (yes you are one of my contact on flickr)

I guess I've grown pass the shooting wide open (or close to) phrase for portrait. I found myself shooting ~f2.8 with my primes anyway, and f2.8 @ 200mm is awesome :D


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swidjaja
Senior Member
395 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: NYC/Northern NJ
     
May 06, 2012 05:14 |  #8

If you are shooting outdoor most of the time, f4IS is better due to the lighter weight.

As far as quality is concerned, they are the same, imho.


6D + enough lenses for now.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cfvisuals
Senior Member
866 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
     
May 06, 2012 05:23 |  #9

swidjaja wrote in post #14386982 (external link)
If you are shooting outdoor most of the time, f4IS is better due to the lighter weight.

As far as quality is concerned, they are the same, imho.

Yeah I think with the range, I would probably be outdoor most of the time.
The problem is that occasionally I will be indoor shooting events like weddings or balls.
I don't know if that loss of one stop of light will screw me up at times when the lighting is really poor.


flickr (external link)
5∞ portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cfvisuals
Senior Member
866 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
     
May 06, 2012 05:24 |  #10

kin2son wrote in post #14386967 (external link)
I guess I've grown pass the shooting wide open (or close to) phrase for portrait. I found myself shooting ~f2.8 with my primes anyway, and f2.8 @ 200mm is awesome :D


Yeah I am aware of that awesomeness at 200mm F2.8, I wonder how much difference there is f4 200mm vs f2.8 200mm


flickr (external link)
5∞ portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 06, 2012 05:40 |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #14386990 (external link)
Yeah I think with the range, I would probably be outdoor most of the time.

I agree it's mainly an outdoor lens.

The problem is that occasionally I will be indoor shooting events like weddings or balls.
I don't know if that loss of one stop of light will screw me up at times when the lighting is really poor.

For indoor, i'd be looking at 24-70 Canon or Tamron, or a fast prime such as a 35/50L.

If you shoot with 2 bodies, then by all means mount the 70-200 on a second body. But I deinitely pick the 24-70 range for indoor over the 70-200 f whatever.


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 06, 2012 05:45 |  #12
bannedPermanent ban

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #14386993 (external link)
Yeah I am aware of that awesomeness at 200mm F2.8, I wonder how much difference there is f4 200mm vs f2.8 200mm

tbh probably not THAT much. But I know you love bokeh ;) I don't think you'll be satisfied with f4.


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,532 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2008
     
May 06, 2012 06:56 |  #13

kin2son wrote in post #14387033 (external link)
tbh probably not THAT much. But I know you love bokeh ;) I don't think you'll be satisfied with f4.

I would have to somewhat disagree. The 2.8 II version will obviously get you more blur (more bokeh), but the quality of the bokeh on the f4 zoom is excellent.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,263 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6330
Joined Sep 2007
     
May 06, 2012 07:19 |  #14

Interesting thread. Been kinda wanting the 85L, now confused again *sigh*


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CSMFoto
Goldmember
Avatar
1,178 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2011
     
May 06, 2012 07:27 |  #15

Both lens' are SUPER sharp, I personally just invested the money into the 2.8 IS II. I owned a NON-IS f/4 before and it was amazing. Light, super versatile and at the point of when I sold it, it seemed to never come off of my camera. The only draw back with the 2.8 which really doesn't matter to me after you get use to it is the weight. It is about 2x the weight of the F/4. If you are going to be making any kind of money, go with the 2.8. If you really LOVE bokeh and shooting wide open, go with the 2.8. Otherwise stick with the savings and get another lens with the f/4 IS!

Hope this helps!

CSM


Facebook (external link) | CSM Photography (external link) | Gear
I got some camera's & lens'.

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

7,442 views & 0 likes for this thread
canon 70-200 f4 IS vs canon 70-200 f2.8ii 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 FuricZ
1247 guests, 313 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.