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 04 May 2009 (Monday) 09:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 f2.8L IS or 70-200 f4L IS , which IQ better?

 
sf_loft
Member
Avatar
212 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
May 08, 2009 11:15 |  #76

I just ordered the 70-200 f/4L IS from B&H for $1025. I went through the same tough decision as many of you have and purchased it base on IQ and portability. All my other lenses are 2.8 and usually cary a total of 3 in my bag while traveling. Money was not a factor and total carrying weight of my equipment was the biggest. For the type of photography that I do, mostly scenic and outdoors with enough light, f/2.8's is not an absolute necessity. My friend has the f/4 non-IS hooked up to his 10d, hand-held, and he had plenty of tack-sharp images. In good light, you're getting 1/1000 sec shutter speed and that is plenty to get good clean images. I know that the bokeh will not be as nice, but I am planning on getting the 135mm f/2L and the 85mm f/1.2L II at some point for portraits. These lenses hold their value so much that if and when I need f/2.8 IS, I can easily sell it on craigslist with minimal loss. I don't care about bragging rights. This is simply a hobby and the only bragging anyone should care about is the picture itself. You can have the sharpest and most expensive lens in the world, but if you take crappy pictures you'll look like a fool with money to burn.


Canon EOS 5D Mark III & FUJIFILM X-T1 mirrorless

35mm f/1.4L | 85mm f/1.2L II |135mm f/2L | 16-35mm f/2.8L II | 24-70mm f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/4L IS | 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro
Benro C2691T Travel Angel | GP-E2 GPS | EF 1.4x III
FUJINON 23mm 1.4 | FUJINON 35mm 1.4 | FUJINON 56mm 1.2

flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
n1as
Goldmember
2,330 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
May 08, 2009 11:23 |  #77

shaftmaster wrote in post #7882391 (external link)
For indoor sports, even f/2.8 might be too slow. You might want to try the 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2 prime lenses. If you think you need IS, then maybe you should try a monopod.

For indoor basketball f/2.8 is DEFINITELY too slow. Well, if you're shooting big college or pro it may be OK, but many high schools are poorly lit. I shoot high school basketball with primes at ISO 3200, 1/500 f/2.2. I've tried it with several zooms and all of them have lost and extra 1/3 stop of light wide open so I end up shooting 1/250 f/2.8. The shutter is too slow to freeze action in that case.

The local newspaper guy shoots Nikon using the f/2.8 lens. He shoots at 1/250 and is jealous that I can shoot at 1/500. He often uses a flash.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tharmsen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,737 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: NW Indiana
     
May 08, 2009 11:44 |  #78

LeMoNsZ wrote in post #7855087 (external link)
Now im wondering the IQ by both of the lens.
some threads say when wide open @ f2.8 , it will SOFT...
If thats true that 2.8L IS only wil get tack sharp on f4 above,
so what for im going for f2.8L IS ?

I don't know, does this look soft to you? This was shot at f/2.8 and ISO 3200 two weeks ago using my 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!


Here's another one... same conditions and lens.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!


In my opinion the ultimate lens in my kit is my 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Most everyone I know who owns one rates this lens at the top of their list in terms of IQ and usefulness.

If you have the financial resources, you'll want to get the f/2.8L IS version. You'll thank me later.



Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,330 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
May 08, 2009 13:24 |  #79

Those look sharp but ... they weren't taken with my lens :-)

I'm on my 2nd 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The first one was sharper wide open than the 2nd. My issue with the 2nd one is not that it is not sharp, but that it renders less contrast so the line between light and dark smears some as the light areas bleed into the dark a bit. The net effect is that images shot wide open just don't quite have the same snap as I get from other lenses wide open (135L. Sigma 100-300 f/4. 70-200 f/4IS)


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tharmsen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,737 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: NW Indiana
     
May 08, 2009 13:51 |  #80

n1as wrote in post #7883439 (external link)
Those look sharp but ... they weren't taken with my lens :-)

I'm on my 2nd 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The first one was sharper wide open than the 2nd. My issue with the 2nd one is not that it is not sharp, but that it renders less contrast so the line between light and dark smears some as the light areas bleed into the dark a bit. The net effect is that images shot wide open just don't quite have the same snap as I get from other lenses wide open (135L. Sigma 100-300 f/4. 70-200 f/4IS)

What camera body are you using? Do you have micro-adjustment? I suspect this would revolve your soft image issue.

Regardless, what did your 70-200 f/2.8 images look like at f/4? Were they just as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 lens?




Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LeMoNsZ
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
34 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
May 08, 2009 14:17 |  #81

tharmsen wrote in post #7883616 (external link)
What camera body are you using? Do you have micro-adjustment? I suspect this would revolve your soft image issue.

Regardless, what did your 70-200 f/2.8 images look like at f/4? Were they just as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 lens?

May i know what is micro-adjustment ?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rdenney
Rick "who is not suited for any one title" Denney
2,400 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2003
     
May 08, 2009 14:46 |  #82

LeMoNsZ wrote in post #7883780 (external link)
May i know what is micro-adjustment ?

It's a way to calibrate a particular lens's focus response to a particular body, using a feature in the body's software.

And it, along with Live View, is a way for those who have bought the latest generation of cameras to feel superior to those of us who haven't, heh, heh.

Rick "who wouldn't mind the Live View" Denney


The List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tharmsen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,737 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: NW Indiana
     
May 08, 2009 15:17 |  #83

LeMoNsZ wrote in post #7883780 (external link)
May i know what is micro-adjustment ?

This thread kind of talks about it.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=689804

Bodies and lenses are obviously mass produced and all have a certain acceptable tolerance. Often lenses and bodies don't align 100% and the focus is just a little bit of. Now days Canon and Nikon offer the ability for you to adjust the front/back focus for each lens on your camera yourself. Previously you had to send your lens and body to Canon to have them calibrate the alignment for you. This cost money and took time.

Right now Canon offers 4 bodies with micro-adjustment. The 50D, 5DMk2 and 1DMk3 and 1DsMk3. I suspect all future pro-sumers and pro bodies offered by both Canon and Nikon will include this quite useful feature.




Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,330 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
May 08, 2009 21:05 |  #84

tharmsen wrote in post #7883616 (external link)
What camera body are you using? Do you have micro-adjustment? I suspect this would revolve your soft image issue.

Regardless, what did your 70-200 f/2.8 images look like at f/4? Were they just as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 lens?

40D with no micro adjust. I've recently gotten a 1D MK II but still no micro adjust. I did not own the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 at the same time. If I stop down to f/4, my 70-200 is sharper than at f/2.8. As sharp as the f/4 lens at f/4? I don't know but I'd say they're close enough that any difference is only apparent to pixel peepers :-)


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fedxpress
Senior Member
649 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
     
May 08, 2009 22:08 |  #85

I have both and find that if the 4.0 isn't fast enough the 2.8 will only have a few keepers of moving action. Outside at dusk, If the 4.0 gets to slow by the time I swap lens the 2.8 will be to slow. My 2 cents, from what I have seen.

Here is some shots for sharpness and bokeh.
2.8 shot at 2.8 and 200mm

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i150.photobucke​t.com …s90/tccustom/_M​G_0640.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

2.8 shot at 4.0 and 200mm
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i150.photobucke​t.com …s90/tccustom/_M​G_0649.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

4.0 shot at 4.0 and 200mm
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i150.photobucke​t.com …s90/tccustom/_M​G_0646.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

2.8 shot at 4.0 and 70mm
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i150.photobucke​t.com …s90/tccustom/_M​G_0638.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

4.0 shot at 4.0 and 70mm
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i150.photobucke​t.com …s90/tccustom/_M​G_0644.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

and the 2.8 at 2.8 and 70mm for bokeh
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i150.photobucke​t.com …s90/tccustom/_M​G_0637.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


If I had to sell one it would be the 2.8

Fedxpress

1D Mark III, XTi, 16-35 f2.8L ,24-105 F4.0Lis, 28-135 3.5 is, 50 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8IIL is,100-400, Kenko Pro300, 430EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tharmsen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,737 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: NW Indiana
     
May 08, 2009 22:21 |  #86

The f/2.8 looks notably sharper at f/4 than the f/4 lens when looking at the close-up of the knot.

So all things being equal, the f/4 and the f/2.8 are at least equal at the same f/stop setting (f/4) but the f/2.8 can obviously get even wider for those times you need more light - which is quite often for me.

I don't see why you would cripple yourself by ditching the f/2.8 because it doesn't look as sharp at f/2.8 when compared to another lens at f/4. It's common knowledge that f/2.8 isn't the sharpest aperture for ANY lens capable of that setting, not just the 70-200. If you want to freak yourself out, get another 70-200 and set it to f/8 and compare the sharpness to the f/4 lens set to f/4.

:D




Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fedxpress
Senior Member
649 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
     
May 08, 2009 22:30 |  #87

I wouldn't be crippling myself getting rid of the 2.8. About the only time I use it is at a indoor hockey rink. I get a little more keepers here. I have shot indoor basketball and hockey and get less keeper rates then the rink. If I had to carry the 2.8 around like I do the 4.0 I would leave it at home. I have taken the 4.0 along just for what if. I wouldn't do this with the 2.8.
I do carry the 2.8 and my wife uses the 4.0 There is no way she is going to carry it.

Let me back up. I realize that you need the tools to do a job. Given a choice between carrying a 1d or a XTi around on vactaion to saturday afternoon games most folks after the new wears off will just carry the XTi. For 95% of most foks shooting the 4.0 is will be great and they want miss the 2.8.
I would hate to pay an extra 1000 dollars thinking that the 2.8 will make a hugh difference. If I up-graded from my 4.0 and took a hit there and then shelled out for the 2.8 I would see very little if any difference in the shots.

Fedxpress


1D Mark III, XTi, 16-35 f2.8L ,24-105 F4.0Lis, 28-135 3.5 is, 50 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8IIL is,100-400, Kenko Pro300, 430EXII

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

6,690 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 f2.8L IS or 70-200 f4L IS , which IQ better?
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 EgonSpengler_89
2479 guests, 284 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.