200mm f2 vs f2.8

Rudeofus wrote in post #4806219
You did indeed point out the IS, but didn't explicitly mention that it has much more potential effect on light requirements than the dreaded extra F stop.

Two things:

First of all, I don't think it even remotely requires an explicit mention. I'm pretty sure anyone who would even consider these types of lenses would be knowledged enough to know the benefits of IS.

Secondly, considering the context, the IS often isn't so useful here. Yes, the IS gives you an extra 4-stops of handholdability, but primarily for subjects which are static in nature. For a sports shooter (arguably the primary market), the extra 1-stop in the aperture arena will tend to give much more potential usefulness than the IS. If a professional shooting indoor sports was aiming for around 1/500th sec., the IS will NOT 'have much more potential effect on light requirements than the dreaded extra F stop.' Under these circumstances, the extra one-stop is king. It wouldn't matter if the IS gave you 10 stops of handholdability.. the point is low shutter speeds are not required under those circumstances.

Rudeofus wrote in post #4806219
Let phrase it this way: With the F2 IS you can take pictures hand held of non-moving objects with 1/32 of the light that you would need for the F/2.8 non-IS.

Yes, but a technical interpretation is not enough. Like already mentioned, this lens will arguably be primarily in the hands of sports photographers and that practical implecation must be considered. If I'm going to spend my time shooting at 1/320 sec.+ most of the time, it doesn't matter a heck that I can get 1/15th sec. keepers with this baby - it's not relevant for the situation.

Ok, so basically, the IS isn't necessarily immediately useful, but even then, I'd have thought it could be good for sports shooters, if they're on a wooden floor, or other surfaces that vibrate, then the IS will help save shots with marginal shutter speeds that would otherwise have been spoilt.

goatee wrote in post #4806447
Ok, so basically, the IS isn't necessarily immediately useful, but even then, I'd have thought it could be good for sports shooters, if they're on a wooden floor, or other surfaces that vibrate, then the IS will help save shots with marginal shutter speeds that would otherwise have been spoilt.

Oh definitely.. and we're not just talking about 'vibrating surfaces'; IS often increases the keeper rate even for shutter speeds considerably faster than the 1/FL rule.

I tend to shoot slower shutter speeds with my 70-200, but I have no doubt that the IS enhances my number of keepers for shutter speeds well into the 1/several hundreds sec. realm.

The main point we were arguing against is Rudeofus's main focus on a 32-fold advantage in low-light shooting.. which is an extreme case and not representative of the majority of practical circumstances this lens would be used under. When you shoot high shutter speeds, it's not relevant to talk up a 32-fold low-light shooting advantage. The best the IS will do there is, like you implied, enhance the keeper rate. The key is still the one-stop advantage in the f-stop department.

I gotcha - I guess for gig photographers (in very large venues), or theatre or other similar locations where it would be useful, then a stop or two of IS will also really come in handy, as the people aren't moving too much, so having a shutter speed in the realms of 1/60s would just about be fast enough.

Collin85 wrote in post #4806467
The main point we were arguing against is Rudeofus's main focus on a 32-fold advantage in low-light shooting.. which is an extreme case and not representative of the majority of practical circumstances this lens would be used under. When you shoot high shutter speeds, it's not relevant to talk up a 32-fold low-light shooting advantage. The best the IS will do there is, like you implied, enhance the keeper rate. The key is still the one-stop advantage in the f-stop department.

I really hate to see this turning into a personal flame war between the two of us (and promise that this will be my last post in this thread). I specifically pointed out that this 32 fold gain won't hold in many situations, especially fast action (and indoor sports events) will most likely only benefit from the F increase.

My main point was that the difference between the F2 and the F2.8 is not only this one extra F stop. Ok, I shall rest at peace now ...

Rudeofus wrote in post #4806537
I specifically pointed out that this 32 fold gain won't hold in many situations, especially fast action (and indoor sports events) will most likely only benefit from the F increase.

My main point was that the difference between the F2 and the F2.8 is not only this one extra F stop. Ok, I shall rest at peace now ...

Yes, I note that. However my concern is what you said after that:

"You did indeed point out the IS, but didn't explicitly mention that it has much more potential effect on light requirements than the dreaded extra F stop."

Assessments on any 'potential effects' of such a benefit must take into account the aspect of practicality too. With this lens going mainly into the hands of those who crave higher shutter speeds, potentially speaking, the 'dreaded extra F stop' is the king here. IS helps, but I wouldn't agree that it has a 'much higher potential effect' than the extra-stop provided by the f/2.

Hence for that reason (and the reason I provided in one of my earlier posts), there was no need for me to 'explicitly' elaborate on anything further on the IS feature other than the fact that this lens came with an IS.

Good day to you.

For those that don't know the difference between the 200 f2 and the 200 f2.8, the 200 f2can be grouped in with the super telephotos.

It will fit right in with the 300.28, 400 2.8, 500 f4, and 600 f4. as a professional caliber lens. It will have a professional lens price tag as well.

pparker wrote in post #4806588
It will have a professional lens price tag as well.

Yeah that's for sure.

But I thought the only difference was the colour?

The primary use of this lenses predecessor was Olympiad indoor arena sports. Gymnastics, skating, etc.
Low inconsistent light, with a need for motion freezing shutter speeds. IS won;t help give a fast motion stopping shutter, but surely it can help with keeper ratio where fast reaction and no tripod (in a VERY heavy lens) could effect IQ.

The f/1.8L version was designed with film in mind, so at the time that extra stop of aperture was absolutely considered valuable!

It's discontinuation was more to do with lack of demand and lack of sales compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms than the lead glass often mentioned on forums.

The demand for a replacement has gone up as pro level SLR ownership and use has gone up considerably in the DSLR market.

I agree with some of the comments that the "need" for this optic is less than it was in the film era. But the actual demand may be much higher due simply to the vastly larger installed base of Pro DSLR and high end lens users than there was 10 years ago.

RE: Big White Super telephoto, indeed, the numbers put this lens essentially on par with a 500mm f/4.5 or obviously a 400mm f/4 re: weight and front element diameter, with only length being dramatically less. so I agree, it is a Super Telephoto by design.

For scale reference, here it is pictured next to the 13 pound SIGMA 300-800mm and the approx 8 pound 500mm f/4L IS

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.