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 Feb 2014 (Wednesday) 21:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 f2.8 non IS or f4 IS

 
nightcat
Goldmember
4,533 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2008
     
Feb 27, 2014 09:41 |  #16

The f4 has much better IQ.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,432 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Feb 27, 2014 09:41 |  #17

Yes, get the f/4 IS for outdoors. Indoors - f/2.8 is not fast enough. Best ever indoor basketball lens = EF 85/1.8.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Noitca
Senior Member
551 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Likes: 317
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Acworth, GA
     
Feb 27, 2014 10:24 |  #18

Question. I am hoping to be facing a similar situation in the near future.

What about this. One of the things that concerns me with general outdoor shooting is 200mm being too short at times. That said, wouldn't a 2.8 be more receptive to TC's? I think the f/4 could still function with a 1.4, but probably not with a 2x, where the 2.8 would still work with the 2x as well. Would that be worth going for the f/2.8 over the f/4?


T1i with 18-55, 55-250, 50 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,171 posts
Gallery: 263 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 7902
Joined Dec 2006
     
Feb 27, 2014 10:28 |  #19

Noitca wrote in post #16721694 (external link)
Question. I am hoping to be facing a similar situation in the near future.

What about this. One of the things that concerns me with general outdoor shooting is 200mm being too short at times. That said, wouldn't a 2.8 be more receptive to TC's? I think the f/4 could still function with a 1.4, but probably not with a 2x, where the 2.8 would still work with the 2x as well. Would that be worth going for the f/2.8 over the f/4?

Except for a couple of issues. Without IS your lens is going to be tough to handhold at 400 (with the hypothetical 2x). The 2x really take a hit on your IQ compared to the 1.4, and lastly if you really want 400, get a 100-400L and dont mess around.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Feb 27, 2014 10:59 |  #20

Noitca wrote in post #16721694 (external link)
What about this. One of the things that concerns me with general outdoor shooting is 200mm being too short at times. That said, wouldn't a 2.8 be more receptive to TC's? I think the f/4 could still function with a 1.4, but probably not with a 2x, where the 2.8 would still work with the 2x as well. Would that be worth going for the f/2.8 over the f/4?

If you think 200 mm will be too short, my advice would be to buy a longer lens.

I found myself in this situation, in that the 200 mm of my 70-200 f4 IS was often too short for the sports I like to shoot, and also for the backyard bird feeder. I tried a 1.4 TC, and while it functioned fairly well, the TC affected focusing speed and ability and lengthened the short end of the lens, which was also inconvenient. In the end, I sold the f4 IS and bought a 70-300 instead, and am very, very pleased with it. My new lens is still light enough to carry everywhere, has an outstanding IS system and lightning-fast autofocus, and that extra 100 mm is proving to be very useful.

The 70-200s are wonderful lenses, but if you regularly need longer, there are some equally wonderful alternatives out there.


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
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,646 posts
Gallery: 134 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 998
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Feb 27, 2014 11:12 |  #21

Noitca wrote in post #16721694 (external link)
Question. I am hoping to be facing a similar situation in the near future.

What about this. One of the things that concerns me with general outdoor shooting is 200mm being too short at times. That said, wouldn't a 2.8 be more receptive to TC's? I think the f/4 could still function with a 1.4, but probably not with a 2x, where the 2.8 would still work with the 2x as well. Would that be worth going for the f/2.8 over the f/4?

I use the Canon 1.4 with my 70-200 f4 IS and it is usable on a crop body. Because the IQ doesn't take much of a hit with the 1.4 tc, my reach is 280mm at f5.6 actual, and 448mm crop adjusted. It's going to have to do for me, but I don't do a lot of wildlife. I am taking that combo to Africa this fall with a monopod, and it will have to get the job done. Sharp RAW images and the cropping tool will be my friends in that venture.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Noitca
Senior Member
551 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Likes: 317
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Acworth, GA
     
Feb 27, 2014 12:59 |  #22

Thanks for the feedback.

I use my 55-250 a lot, but I think it may be "out of whack" (technical term). The IQ on it has gone downhill a lot lately. Hope to upgrade soon. I know there are times where I feel the 250 end is just too short, and while going to a better quality lens, I have reservations about dropping the 50mm. Though I might be kidding myself.

the 70-300 and/or 100-400 look nice. Was trying to see if it were feasible to something similar in focal length for a few bucks less, and have f/2.8 or f/4 available.


T1i with 18-55, 55-250, 50 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,171 posts
Gallery: 263 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 7902
Joined Dec 2006
     
Feb 27, 2014 13:05 |  #23

Noitca wrote in post #16722057 (external link)
Thanks for the feedback.

I use my 55-250 a lot, but I think it may be "out of whack" (technical term). The IQ on it has gone downhill a lot lately. Hope to upgrade soon. I know there are times where I feel the 250 end is just too short, and while going to a better quality lens, I have reservations about dropping the 50mm. Though I might be kidding myself.

the 70-300 and/or 100-400 look nice. Was trying to see if it were feasible to something similar in focal length for a few bucks less, and have f/2.8 or f/4 available.

To get the 2.8 past 200 gets expensive very fast. Since the aperture is actually a ratio of the focal length you have to have a large lens diameter to make a 300 2.8, or even f/4. And that costs lots of bucks. For a little savings look at the new tamron 150-600.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moltengold
Goldmember
4,296 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jul 2011
     
Feb 27, 2014 13:22 |  #24

michgirl wrote in post #16721438 (external link)
I vote for the F4 IS - last year I tried the Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 with VC, way too heavy, although it was a beautiful lens. The F4 IS is lightweight, sharp, great contrast and a joy to use.

+1 for the F4 IS
for the light weight


| Canon EOS | and some canon lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
IlliniFan99
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
83 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2013
     
Feb 27, 2014 20:30 as a reply to  @ nightcat's post |  #25

Thanks all for the advice. I just picked up the f4 for $1,000.

I didn't get it until dusk, but I wanted to test it out so here are a couple of pictures from my son's lacrosse practice.

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7412/12825993725_00c16ab131_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …18018477@N03/12​825993725/  (external link)
IMG_3824 (external link) by owen_lancaster1 (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7307/12825994715_5aa559ff90_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …18018477@N03/12​825994715/  (external link)
IMG_3823 (external link) by owen_lancaster1 (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2833/12825996195_afcf0eb0e8_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …18018477@N03/12​825996195/  (external link)
IMG_3818 (external link) by owen_lancaster1 (external link), on Flickr



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
danisnug
Junior Member
20 posts
Joined Jun 2013
     
Feb 27, 2014 21:29 as a reply to  @ IlliniFan99's post |  #26

go for the 4L IS. The 2.8 non IS are not weather-sealed and noticeably softer at wide open than 4 IS. I recently used my 4 IS + 70D of a friend of mine for outdoor sport and when just before the game start heavy rain suddenly start to fall and I'm not bringing my raincoat for my gear. I decided to continue shooting in an open area where rain pouring me, and my gear, without any protection. Here is a couple of shoots I took on the game day

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7358/12746905584_e056021eb5_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/danisnug/127469​05584/  (external link)
IMG_9955 (external link) by danisnug (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7400/12746226513_1bbccd9a03_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/danisnug/127462​26513/  (external link)
IMG_9803 (external link) by danisnug (external link), on Flickr

If you think you need the 2.8, then go for 2.8 II IS. The 2.8 IS I has similar optical characteristic to 2.8 non IS.

Gear List
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bikeboyjr
Member
55 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
Feb 27, 2014 21:46 |  #27

I've owned both and shoot quite a bit of field sports myself. Of the two, the f/4 IS is sharper when both lenses are shot wide open, however, the non-is 2.8 at f/4 is sharper than the f/4 IS at f/4. Also, the extra stop of light really does come in handy, especially as kids get older and play into the evening hours.


80D | 24 f2.8 EF-S STM | 50 f1.8 STM | 10-22 f3.5-4.5 EF-S | 17-55 f2.8 EF-S | 70-200 f2.8L IS II | 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II | 430EXIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Feb 28, 2014 15:12 |  #28

IlliniFan99 wrote in post #16723020 (external link)
Thanks all for the advice. I just picked up the f4 for $1,000.

I didn't get it until dusk, but I wanted to test it out so here are a couple of pictures from my son's lacrosse practice.

Congratulations on your new lens - you're going to love the f4 IS, it's outstanding.


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
waterrockets
Goldmember
Avatar
3,945 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 306
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Austin (near TX)
     
Feb 28, 2014 15:43 |  #29

Gatorboy wrote in post #16721401 (external link)
If you are going to use for sports, it's a no-brainer. IS is not needed, so go with the faster 2.8.

This. The really thin DoF of the f/2.8 at 200mm when your subject is filling the frame -- it's just wonderful. I have the f/2.8 non-IS with no regrets. It's a great lens.

I've never felt it was too heavy, but that's a pretty subjective issue. I'm a bike racer and suffering for enjoyment is part of daily life ;) The lens is not light, but I just don't care. It lives on my 1D3 during the sports seasons.

Indoors and outdoors, I'm usually using a monopod. I'm not using it for indoor sports, but it's great for kids' events.


1D MkIV | 1D MkIII | 550D w/grip & ML| EF 70-200mm f2.8L| EF 24-105mm f4L IS | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC | 430EXii | EF 50mm f1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,646 posts
Gallery: 134 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 998
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Feb 28, 2014 22:01 |  #30

waterrockets wrote in post #16724919 (external link)
This. The really thin DoF of the f/2.8 at 200mm when your subject is filling the frame -- it's just wonderful. I have the f/2.8 non-IS with no regrets. It's a great lens.

I've never felt it was too heavy, but that's a pretty subjective issue. I'm a bike racer and suffering for enjoyment is part of daily life ;) The lens is not light, but I just don't care. It lives on my 1D3 during the sports seasons.

Indoors and outdoors, I'm usually using a monopod. I'm not using it for indoor sports, but it's great for kids' events.

You're a little late. He already got the f4 IS and posted some shots taken with it. Not everyone is in love with thin DoF. It actually makes getting the shot more difficult because focus is more critical. He's in it for his son's games, not for professional sale. He seems happy with his choice .


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

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

5,329 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 f2.8 non IS or 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 Eternal Louper
730 guests, 291 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.