70-200 4Lor 2.8L

When you say you need f/2.8 for DoF, it's still a variable. The distance to subject and subject to background all play an important part in DoF.

i know its still a variable, but the extra stop of light doesn't really matter to me since i don't shoot indoors or weddings.

i know i need more length, and i really like the 85 for portraits.

any other suggestions or is the 70-200/f4 the best option for the price even if i keep my 85?

mike_311 wrote in post #15812219
i know its still a variable, but the extra stop of light doesn't really matter to me since i don't shoot indoors or weddings.

i know i need more length, and i really like the 85 for portraits.

any other suggestions or is the 70-200/f4 the best option for the price even if i keep my 85?

Which F4? IS or non IS. Seriously, there is a difference and it matters a lot depending on your intended use.

F/4 IS and mainly portrait use. Any other use is secondary to use as a portrait lens.

Difference in DOF between F4 and 2.8 on the 70-200 is not really material....particular​ly on the long end of the lens. I'd go for the 2.8 only if you absolutely need extra stop of light gathering ability. I don't use the 2.8II as much as I should because of the size. In hindight, I think the F4 IS would have sufficed for me, and would have probably been a better choise due to the size. If I ever need light gathering ability, I reach for my primes anyway.

mystik610 wrote in post #15812855
Difference in DOF between F4 and 2.8 on the 70-200 is not really material....particular​ly on the long end of the lens. I'd go for the 2.8 only if you absolutely need extra stop of light gathering ability. I don't use the 2.8II as much as I should because of the size. In hindight, I think the F4 IS would have sufficed for me, and would have probably been a better choise due to the size. If I ever need light gathering ability, I reach for my primes anyway.

I couldn't agree more with this post.

I needed/wanted (because of the extra stop in light gathering) an got a 70-200mm f/2.8 and IS so that is what I bought. It is big and heavy, but I can carry it all day. It does what I need and want in a zoom of that range.

I don't know if it will work for you, and maybe the f4.0 would work for you.

I'm pretty sure any of the Canon 70-200mm L lenses (regardless of IS or not, or aperture) is going to have top IQ and build. I don't think any will disappoint.

You need to decide if you want IS or no IS. Plus decide if you need to have F/2.8 or if f/4.0 is enough. For many f/4.0 is enough, for me it would not be enough.

If you keep the 85mm, you would have a lens that could do the lower light along with an f/4 zoom - each for when/if needed.

You could go for the f/4.0 and try it. If is not enough, sell it and get an f/2.8. You probably would not lose much in the selling.

I was wondering the same thing, and decided to go for the F4 IS to start. Locally, it runs about $1300 - 1400 new (taxes in), so I'm watching for a good buy on a used lens; I see a lot around $1000, and even some at that price with a hood and tripod collar; I'll just bide my time until I get the right deal.

I figure that I can use it for a year to see if it will do everything I want. Then, if I decide to try a 2.8, I should get most of my money back selling the F4, and will have had a year to squirrel away enough to cover the switch. Even if I lose a hundred bucks on the F4 it will still have been cheap rental for the year.

I switched from the 70-200 f/4 to the f/2.8 and have not regretted it. Why? For me, where I was shooting (sports in lower light venues), the AF was much much more reliable, especially in AI Servo. Even though I'm using flash and have pretty good control of my lighting, the f/2.8 made a big difference in getting shots in focus. I still want to upgrade to a 7D, but I'm not as desperate as I was a few weeks ago.

It really depends on what your going to use it for. I bought the F/4 IS version and then came home and read all of the great reviews on the latest F/2.8 version. I thought uh oh I bought the wrong lens. I went back to the store the next day, ( they would have happily exchanged it for me) and thought I'd test both lens side by side. Now my f/4 is the sharpest lens I've ever seen, but I do believe the f2.8 is ever so slightly sharper based on the sample pictures I took in the store. HOWEVER the when the sales guy took the lens out of the box and I seen the size of that thing I new there was no way I was going home with that anchor. I planned on using my 70-200 on short hiking expeditions and I wasn't about to try and lug around the 2.8 version. I quickly decided the f4 was all I needed. I need another stop I'll raise the ISO. LOL.

Spats139 wrote in post #15814168
I was wondering the same thing, and decided to go for the F4 IS to start. Locally, it runs about $1300 - 1400 new (taxes in), so I'm watching for a good buy on a used lens; I see a lot around $1000, and even some at that price with a hood and tripod collar; I'll just bide my time until I get the right deal.

I figure that I can use it for a year to see if it will do everything I want. Then, if I decide to try a 2.8, I should get most of my money back selling the F4, and will have had a year to squirrel away enough to cover the switch. Even if I lose a hundred bucks on the F4 it will still have been cheap rental for the year.

UPDATE: The last couple hours have been productive. Just picked up a used F4 IS (my first "L" lens), with a hood, filter, tripod ring (3rd party) and shipping for under $900CDN! It's going to be a long week watching for the mail.

Hey Michael,

Just had a look through your website, and I can't imagine any good reason to sell your 85mm lens. On a FF body, for portraits, you really do "need" 85mm - and the Sigma f/1.4 is a gem...I have it, and love it!

As to sometimes wanting a longer lens, well, as has been said, the 135L is the way to go....or you could consider the 200 f/2.8L too. MUCH cheaper than most other options, but still VERY sharp.

Why NOT a zoom? Because if you're shooting portraits, you should be able to know, before you pick up the camera, which lens will work for each location.

PLUS, the 200L is black. Not white. And so, it's less intimidating to the customer.

Regards,

Simon

PS: If you don't mind me saying, "Folio" is a bit of an odd word to use on your website, as it has a definition which doesn't coincide with what you're using it for. "Portfolio" is better.

Everybody has put in their valuable advices.
Here is my 2cents:
Canon AF system works better in accuracy with f/2.8 lens than with f/4 lens regardless of your actual aperture of your photo.

I have the f/4 lens, and it works just fine in a studio setting. For action shot in low light, f/4 can not deliver.

blueskyoveraquatic wrote in post #15814630
Everybody has put in their valuable advices.
Here is my 2cents:
Canon AF system works better in accuracy with f/2.8 lens than with f/4 lens regardless of your actual aperture of your photo.

I have the f/4 lens, and it works just fine in a studio setting. For action shot in low light, f/4 can not deliver.

Glad to see someone else having the same experience! I was shocked at how much better the 2.8 worked in AI Servo for me.

skygod44 wrote in post #15814600
Hey Michael,

Just had a look through your website, and I can't imagine any good reason to sell your 85mm lens. On a FF body, for portraits, you really do "need" 85mm - and the Sigma f/1.4 is a gem...I have it, and love it!

As to sometimes wanting a longer lens, well, as has been said, the 135L is the way to go....or you could consider the 200 f/2.8L too. MUCH cheaper than most other options, but still VERY sharp.

Why NOT a zoom? Because if you're shooting portraits, you should be able to know, before you pick up the camera, which lens will work for each location.

PLUS, the 200L is black. Not white. And so, it's less intimidating to the customer.

Regards,

Simon

PS: If you don't mind me saying, "Folio" is a bit of an odd word to use on your website, as it has a definition which doesn't coincide with what you're using it for. "Portfolio" is better.

i know i need 85, i use all the time, its my favorite lens.

this all stared because im setting up a shoot with a couple in a few weeks and i intend to do a variety of shots in a short amount of time, some of those shots will be them in a boat on a lake where i can't get close enough with my 85 standing on the edge of the lake. i was considering renting a 70-300 or i figure i know need the extra length at times and i hear great things about he 70-200, i was wondering if i could get that and replace my 85 if the sharpness is comparable and since i'd already be covering that focal range.

now, if anything i will keep the 85 now and possibly just add a 70-200/4L.

its not a lens a plan to use all that often so i really don't want to drop all that money on a 135L, and there really aren't many alternatives of longer lengths that are cost effective for FF. photography isn't my full time gig and I don't do weddings so i need to be careful spending all my profits on glass ( or so my wife tells me .

that for the website critique, i'm happy to get it, Folio was there in the template and i think it referred to the old slideshow that i replaced. it wouldn't hurt to change it if its causing confusion, although i haven't had any reason up until your comment to think that it was so thanks again for that.