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 09 Apr 2013 (Tuesday) 12:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 4Lor 2.8L

 
Gregg.Siam
Goldmember
Avatar
2,383 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Bangkok
     
Apr 09, 2013 22:36 as a reply to  @ post 15810052 |  #16

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.


5D MKIII | 24-105mm f/4 L| 50mm f/1.8 | 600EX-RT [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=bl​ue][FONT="]|
∞ 500px (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mike_311
THREAD ­ STARTER
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 562
Joined Mar 2011
     
Apr 10, 2013 13:03 |  #17

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?


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,454 posts
Gallery: 393 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 10878
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 10, 2013 13:19 |  #18

mike_311 wrote in post #15812219 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
THREAD ­ STARTER
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 562
Joined Mar 2011
     
Apr 10, 2013 14:08 |  #19

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


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,979 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 11917
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Apr 10, 2013 15:35 as a reply to  @ post 15810052 |  #20

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.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Uncle ­ Flash
Senior Member
306 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2012
Location: Western Australia
     
Apr 10, 2013 18:02 |  #21

mystik610 wrote in post #15812855 (external link)
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.


Big dreams, small wallet.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Apr 10, 2013 19:18 as a reply to  @ post 15810052 |  #22

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.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Spats139
Senior Member
Avatar
412 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 83
Joined Jan 2009
Location: LMD, BC, CA
     
Apr 10, 2013 21:32 as a reply to  @ jimewall's post |  #23

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.


Dale

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GregDunn
Goldmember
Avatar
1,289 posts
Likes: 130
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Indiana
     
Apr 10, 2013 22:18 |  #24

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. :)


Canon 1Dx | 5D3 | 7D2 | 6D | 70-200L f/2.8IS | 70-200L f/4 | 24-70L f/2.8 | 24-105L f/4IS | 100-400L f/4.5-5.6IS | 17-55 f/2.8IS | 50 f/1.8 | 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 | 4x Godox AD360

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hitthespot
Senior Member
554 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Ohio
     
Apr 10, 2013 23:04 as a reply to  @ GregDunn's post |  #25

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.


Canon 7D, 24-105 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/4L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, 430EX II,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Spats139
Senior Member
Avatar
412 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 83
Joined Jan 2009
Location: LMD, BC, CA
     
Apr 10, 2013 23:37 |  #26

Spats139 wrote in post #15814168 (external link)
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. ;)


Dale

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skygod44
"in stockings and suspenders"
Avatar
6,444 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Southern Kyushu, Japan. Which means nowhere near Tokyo!
     
Apr 10, 2013 23:54 as a reply to  @ Spats139's post |  #27

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. :)


"Whatever you do, enjoy yourself...otherwise, what's the point."
6D/7D and ALL Canon/Sigma gear SOLD!!!! Now: Olympus PEN EP-5 & OM-D EM-5 Mk2 and 8 lenses!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blueskyoveraquatic
Member
Avatar
120 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 31
Joined Sep 2010
Location: California, USA
     
Apr 11, 2013 00:13 |  #28

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.


Canon 40D / 1DM3 / 1Dx / 400mm f/2.8 II / AlienBee B400 / AlienBee 22" Beauty Dish / EF 1.4x Extender / PocketWizard Plus III
Websites: flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GregDunn
Goldmember
Avatar
1,289 posts
Likes: 130
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Indiana
     
Apr 11, 2013 01:02 |  #29

blueskyoveraquatic wrote in post #15814630 (external link)
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.


Canon 1Dx | 5D3 | 7D2 | 6D | 70-200L f/2.8IS | 70-200L f/4 | 24-70L f/2.8 | 24-105L f/4IS | 100-400L f/4.5-5.6IS | 17-55 f/2.8IS | 50 f/1.8 | 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 | 4x Godox AD360

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
THREAD ­ STARTER
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 562
Joined Mar 2011
     
Apr 11, 2013 06:48 |  #30

skygod44 wrote in post #15814600 (external link)
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.


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

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

4,040 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 4Lor 2.8L
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 Peter Herber
334 guests, 244 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.