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 Aug 2012 (Sunday) 10:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 70-200 f/4 vs 2.8

 
kbar7285
Member
Avatar
130 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Northeastern NJ
     
Aug 26, 2012 10:55 |  #1

I'm considering a f/4 IS version of the 70-200. I shoot with a 1d MK IV and a 1ds MK II.
Given the high ISO performance of both bodies, would the f/4 be a viable option ?
Experiences and opinions would be appreciated.

Al




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
billppw350z
Member
Avatar
210 posts
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Carson City
     
Aug 26, 2012 11:23 |  #2

There are only three significant factors that differentiate the 70-200 f4 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II:

1. One stop
2. 1.61 lbs.
3. $950

Which one you want really depends on what you will be taking pictures of and thus which of these factors is most important or not important to you. I use each of them for different types of photography and both are amazing.


Bill
Regardless of the genre or medium, I just like capturing beauty and recording memories
billppw350z.smugmug.co​m/ (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Aug 26, 2012 11:31 |  #3

It's an amazing, lightweight, very versatile lens. Having previously owned a f.8 non-IS, I much prefer the smaller format of the f4 IS. You're unlikely to be disappointed.


Gear: Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 24-105L f4, Canon 70-300L, Canon 60 macro f/2.8, Speedlite 580 EXII, 2x AB800

Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Uncle ­ Flash
Senior Member
306 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2012
Location: Western Australia
     
Aug 26, 2012 11:33 |  #4

I pondered this for weeks before I bought my 2.8 IS II. The problem is, they're both good but I couldn't afford both.

I was persuaded by three things:

1. One stop
2. I could afford either
3. If I bought the F4, I would always be asking myself "What if..."

But I'm still asking "What if..." :rolleyes:


Big dreams, small wallet.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,259 posts
Likes: 2072
Joined Nov 2005
Location: San Diego County, California, USA
     
Aug 26, 2012 12:05 as a reply to  @ Uncle Flash's post |  #5

I never leave home without my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens! However, I have read numerous posts on various forums in which the posters did not want to take a 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) lens on a trip because IT IS TOO HEAVY! I have never read a post by the owner of an f/4L IS lens suggesting that this lens should could not be carried anywhere...

I can carry the f/4L IS lens AND A SECOND 1.6x CAMERA at the same weight as the f/2.8L (series) lens alone...

With the decent ISO capability of today's DSLR cameras and the capability of hand holding the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens down to 1/60 or even 1/30 second; the f/4L IS lens is no longer a captive to bright light as was its older brother: the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) lens...

I am glad that the f/2.8L IS ii lens is more expensive than the f/4L IS. It it were the other way around, I would have even a harder decision in selecting the f/4L IS. But, due to the weight factor, I still think that the f/4L IS would win that contest...

I have to admit that the f/2.8L IS ii lens is a wonderful piece of gear. The big claim of the f/2.8L IS ii fan club is that the f/2.8 aperture can provide better selective focus. Well, these were shot with the f/4L IS lens...

IMAGE: http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Pets/Holly-Doodle/Holly-198-100-pixels/1062075397_aJyKz-L.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …62075397&k=aJyK​z&lb=1&s=A  (external link)

IMAGE: http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Pets/Holly-Doodle/i-ZTkkrdC/0/L/Holly-202-240-Pixels-L.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …721830&k=ZTkkrd​C&lb=1&s=A  (external link)

See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kbar7285
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
130 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Northeastern NJ
     
Aug 26, 2012 12:37 as a reply to  @ RPCrowe's post |  #6

Thanks for the help. I did forget to mention that I do most of my shooting outdoors. My main lens is a 500 f/4 and f/4 never seemed to be a problem, especially with the 1d mark iv. So the question is that of iq and sharpness. It appears that the consensus is that, in good light it's as good as the 2.8.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stir ­ Fry ­ A ­ Lot
Senior Member
679 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Berkeley, Ca
     
Aug 26, 2012 12:51 as a reply to  @ kbar7285's post |  #7

For outdoor use it is a superb lens. The images from it rarely need any post processing, even when shot wide open.


Flickr (external link)
5D3 | 5Dc | 7D | Tok 16-28 | 24-105 | 17-55 | 70-200 f4 IS | Pancake 40 | Sigma 50 | 85 1.8 | Yongnuo 565EX | Demb Flash Bracket | DiffuseIt Bounce Card | Manfrotto 535 CF Tripod | 2x Yongnuo YN560s | 2x PBL Softbox Umbrellas | CyberSync Triggers | Epson R3000 | A very understanding wife

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wayne.robbins
Goldmember
2,062 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Aug 26, 2012 13:48 |  #8

Aren't the 1D series of cameras among the heaviest cameras Canon makes. Why would a difference in weight be a concern ? I know silly question.

The faster lens is going to give you more overall room - more leeway before you need to get into those higher ISO's.. Not a lot- but enough.

Besides f/2.8 can do f/4- but not vice versa.


EOS 5D III, EOS 7D,EOS Rebel T4i, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, Canon 24-105L, Canon 18-135 IS STM, 1.4x TC III, 2.0x TC III, Σ 50mm f/1.4, Σ 17-50 OS, Σ 70-200 OS, Σ 50-500 OS, Σ 1.4x TC, Σ 2.0x TC, 580EXII(3), Canon SX-40, Canon S100
Fond memories: Rebel T1i, Canon 18-55 IS, Canon 55-250 IS, 18-135 IS (Given to a good home)...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Aug 26, 2012 14:23 |  #9

kbar7285 wrote in post #14908534 (external link)
I'm considering a f/4 IS version of the 70-200. I shoot with a 1d MK IV and a 1ds MK II. Given the high ISO performance of both bodies, would the f/4 be a viable option ?

f/4 + high ISO does not = f/2.8

If you need f/2.8 for faster shutter speeds, brighter viewfinder, size & shape of bokeh, more shallow depth of field, or increased focus precision on certain focus points, then get the f/2.8 lens. If you do not need any of those things, then get the f/4 lens.

The only one of those things that f/4 + high ISO can mimic is the faster shutter speeds, but it will still be slower than f/2.8 + high ISO.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kbar7285
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
130 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Northeastern NJ
     
Aug 26, 2012 19:07 |  #10

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14909148 (external link)
Aren't the 1D series of cameras among the heaviest cameras Canon makes. Why would a difference in weight be a concern ? I know silly question.

The faster lens is going to give you more overall room - more leeway before you need to get into those higher ISO's.. Not a lot- but enough.

Besides f/2.8 can do f/4- but not vice versa.

I never said weight was an issue for me when considering the f/4. You're right though. If I'm shooting with 1d's, weight would not be part of the criteria.
I'm just trying to figure out if the f4 is as sharp as the 2.8 when it comes to outdoor shooting.

Al




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2077
Joined Aug 2012
     
Aug 26, 2012 23:27 as a reply to  @ kbar7285's post |  #11

For outdoor shooting its very hard to tell the difference, I was simply blown away by the sharpness and colour saturation of F4L. For me the deciding factor was its size and weight. F4L+gitzo tripod=F2.8L MKII. Now that for me sealed the deal.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Judsonzhao
Goldmember
Avatar
1,198 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Aug 27, 2012 00:03 |  #12

I have both :)
Almost same focusing speed (for my copies), both tack sharp, both great color satuation.. GREAT IS
Actually I have no idea which to go.. but I siply like f2.8..


Fly me away.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfect_10
Goldmember
Avatar
1,998 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2004
Location: An Ex Brit living in Alberta, Canada
     
Aug 27, 2012 00:29 as a reply to  @ Judsonzhao's post |  #13

I had a 70-200 F4 (non IS) and sold it to get the 70-200 2.8 IS v1. I later sold the F2.8 v1 to get the v2 .. which is by far the sharpest of the three, and the IS does make a real difference.
I have to admit I miss the size and weight of the F4 and am actually thinking about grabbing an additional F4 IS to supplement the 2.8 for the times where size and weight do matter.


My Gear List  :p

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gacon1
Senior Member
Avatar
635 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2006
     
Aug 27, 2012 01:16 |  #14

kbar7285 wrote in post #14908534 (external link)
I'm considering a f/4 IS version of the 70-200. I shoot with a 1d MK IV and a 1ds MK II.
Given the high ISO performance of both bodies, would the f/4 be a viable option ?
Experiences and opinions would be appreciated.

Al

Go for the 70 -200 L f/4 IS. The 70-200 L f2.8 II is overpriced!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Judsonzhao
Goldmember
Avatar
1,198 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Aug 27, 2012 01:26 |  #15

gacon1 wrote in post #14911394 (external link)
Go for the 70 -200 L f/4 IS. The 70-200 L f2.8 II is overpriced!

I dont think so!
A new F4 is around 1100 and a mark II is around 2000, you have a full stop more. And it is probably one of the best zoom Canon ever made, comparable to the primes in this range. That is simply a genious design.
But f4 is not bad for any means. I just dont think mark II is overpriced.


Fly me away.

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

3,956 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 70-200 f/4 vs 2.8
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 achan219
672 guests, 172 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.