apples to almost apples - 70-200 f4II vs 70-200 f2,8 II

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18660635
.
Another thing to consider, besides the stop of light, is the effect that the aperture will have on depth of field.

For what I shoot, there are so many times when having f2.8 instead of f4 would really help to give just a bit more blur to tree branches and other background vegetation, and that little bit of additional blur would really improve the image. . I guess I am just very picky about how the things in the background look. . It matters to me a lot.

For me, wide apertures have never been about getting enough light or faster shutter speeds - they are all about the shallower depth of field.

.

Tom

While I tend to agree with this statement. I think at the distances we have to shoot something like a deer the only way your going to see a major difference is if you can get to F/2.0 and I find that at 200MM .....Its not enough reach. I think if your close telephoto compression would make a difference. However. how close can we really get on some of these subjects ?

The first shot was a deer i was right on top of and I think I had the 300 F/2.8 and was only able to get a 1/2 body shot. The compression was incredible

The 2nd shot- is also a a f/2.8 but further back and I had to crop in. SA 15o-600 and being able to frame would be the better choice for me.

I lean to 100-400, 300 F/2.8 with TC's and Im going to get a 150-600 Sigma sport. I just need to get close enough to frame at 600mm and its going to be a better result than I could ever het with a 70-200F4is.....I dont think the new F/4 is will be something to use for wildlife applications, nor would be the F/2.8 for the same focal length.....I never take out a 70-200 when I am shooting wildlife

Thats me- everyone is different

Replying to the OP, I too have both the f4 IS and 2.8 II. As far as performance goes I think they are very similar, AF, sharpness. The one big difference besides the weight and aperture is the Bokeh. The 2.8 is so much better that even if I don't need f2.8 I will use that lens for anything where I expect the background to be blurred.

IDK if the Bokeh on the f4 II is significantly better than vI or not though.

I keep the f4 for landscapes and hiking when taking the 5DIII as opposed to the M6.