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 31 Mar 2008 (Monday) 12:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

For those who sold 70-200 F4 IS to get 70-200 F2.8 IS - I want to hear from you!

 
bbbig
Senior Member
Avatar
364 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Boston, MA
     
Mar 31, 2008 12:18 |  #1

I am thinking of getting either the f/2.8 IS or the f/4.0 IS, and I would like to especially hear from former f/4.0 IS owners.

So far, I have been leaning toward the f/4.0 IS for the following reasons:
1) Superior optics - prime like sharpness
2) Released in 2006, with 3rd gen Image Stabilization
3) For outdoor use, no issues w/shutter speed - I'm willing to shoot my 1DsMkII at double ISO.
4) More likely that its image will look sharper @400mm (w/2x TC)

However the f/2.8 is still tempting because:
1) Shallower DoF
2) Faster and possibly more accurate focusing, due to 2x light being delivered to sensors.
3) Again, better focusing due to my camera's f/2.8-or-faster set of sensors
4) Love the "big gun" look, with the petal shape hood! :)

I know there are several of you who SOLD your f/4.0 IS to get f/2.8 IS, and I also know who have gone the opposite direction. Do you feel that you have lost sharpness in your images having done so? Do you feel that f/2.8 focuses faster? Was f/4.0 really that limiting, over f/2.8 (in terms of shutter speed)?

As you can tell, the price and weight aren't issues for me. Also, I am 95% positive that I'll be shooting mostly shooting outdoors with this lens. I am mostly shooting my family.

I would appreciate your thoughts! Thanks.


Roy

5D Mark III (external link) | 24-70 2.8L | 70-200 2.8L IS | 50 1.2L (external link) (full gear list)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
philthejuggler
Goldmember
Avatar
2,300 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Northants, United Kingdom
     
Mar 31, 2008 14:12 |  #2

Hi - I'm not quite 100% qualified to answer this thread as I went from 70-200 F4 non-IS to the 70-200 F2.8 IS.

However, the following maybe of use - F4 I found limiting outdoors in dull conditions. The f2.8 is very very sharp, especially once down to f4 and beyond, but still good wide open.

I doubt the F4 IS is sharper than the 135L - comparing the 135L to the f2.8, it is better, but doesn't make the 2.8 look poor by any means.

If you want quality @ 400mm I'm not convinced a 2x converter is the best bet. Not used one yet though, will buy one when I upgrade to the 300 f2.8!!!

Hope this helps,

Phil


Blog (external link), Website (external link) http://www.pho2u.co.uk …pher-in-northamptonshire/ (external link)
1DsIII, 5DIII, ZE21mm, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2II, 135 f2, 580EXIIx2, X-Pro1x2, 18-55, 35 1.4, 60 2.4, EF-X20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thrash_273
Goldmember
Avatar
4,901 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 77
Joined Aug 2007
Location: baltimore
     
Mar 31, 2008 14:21 |  #3

went w/ 2.8 IS and its awesome all the way.


Ben
flickr (external link)
Positive feedbacks, More, More,More
a6000 | Pentax SMC 50 1.7 | Rok 8 2.8 Fe | Sony 50 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,729 posts
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Mar 31, 2008 14:30 as a reply to  @ thrash_273's post |  #4

I went back and forth. f4IS -> f2.8IS->f4 IS->f2.8 IS.

Each time the only reason I went with the f4 IS was the size and weight. Didn't think at all about any IQ difference, which is minimal. Recently I decided I needed the extra stop when I was outside shooting in overcast conditions. Although my 1DMKIII can handle ISO 1600 well, I would always welcome using ISO 800 instead.

Price wasn't a huge issue for me. The weight was. But in the end I decided that the extra stop is worth it.

I took it to a ballgame a few weeks ago with the 1.4x TC and did well with it. It was overcast and I ended up using ISO 800 - 1600. With the f4 IS I suppose that would have been ISO 1600- 3200. I don't shoot sports much so I may have been a little too liberal with the shutter speeds...in retrospect I probably didn't need that much speed.

There will always be that point where you wish you had the extra stop or 2 or 3!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cosworth
I'm comfortable with my masculinity
Avatar
10,930 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Duncan, BC, Canada
     
Mar 31, 2008 14:31 |  #5

bbbig wrote in post #5230951 (external link)
Do you feel that you have lost sharpness in your images having done so? Do you feel that f/2.8 focuses faster? Was f/4.0 really that limiting, over f/2.8 (in terms of shutter speed)?

I qualify. No butt-o-meter talking here.

1. Lost sharpness, no biggie.
2. F/4 Is seemed to track faster on AI servo on objects moving 100+
3. F/4? Hell no. I either shot wide open of f/8. DOf loss was negligible

http://dofmaster.com (external link)

Looking back on my move I did it for the hood, the glory, the women, and to further exacerbate the tennis elbow to garner sympathy from the ladies. Yes, the hood. I have the round hood. I'm into fashion obviously.

I think the ups and down balance each other out with these two. Flip a coin.


people will always try to stop you doing the right thing if it is unconventional
Full frame and some primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,432 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Mar 31, 2008 14:33 |  #6

My path: f/4 to f/2.8 IS to f/4 IS. I couldn't be happier.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jacobsen1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,629 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Mt View, RI
     
Mar 31, 2008 14:34 as a reply to  @ nicksan's post |  #7

I'm in the same boat here. Ignoring the price, I love the idea of the lighter f4 IS as my travel zoom to compliment my UWA zoom. With it's better IS you can get the same exposures if the shutter speed doesn't matter. But I also wonder if f4 is fast enough. For me I'm selling my 24-70mm for the f4 IS version simply because they're similarly priced. If the f2.8 IS version was the same price I'd probably get it and suck up the weight, but because I can't I figure I can test out the f4 IS and sell it/return it if I find f4 to be limiting. I also have a 300mm f4 IS though and I've found it very usable... so with the 70-200's better IS I can't see how I'd have any trouble with it.


My Gear List

my sites:
benjacobsenphoto.com (external link) | newschoolofphotography​.com (external link)
GND buyers FAQ

FOR SALE: 5Dii RRS L-bracket, 430II, 12mm macro tube PM ME!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,729 posts
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Mar 31, 2008 14:34 as a reply to  @ cosworth's post |  #8

Yeah...chicks dig the long lens...:cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,831 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Mar 31, 2008 14:57 |  #9

I had an f/4 IS version for about a week or so, then decided to return it and just spring for the f/2.8 version. I can't say I definitely know I made the right decision, as the smaller size and weight of the f/4 version would be really nice, but the f/2.8 version is really a workhorse and sort of "does it all".

bbbig wrote in post #5230951 (external link)
Do you feel that you have lost sharpness in your images having done so? Do you feel that f/2.8 focuses faster? Was f/4.0 really that limiting, over f/2.8 (in terms of shutter speed)?

1) No. The f/4 version might be a little sharper @ f/4 compared to the f/2.8 version at f/2.8. Stop the f/2.8 version down to f/4 and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a difference. However if you're at f/4 and really need a little more light, only one of these lenses are going to be able to give it to you.

2) When the light get low, I find that any f/2.8 lens is going to focus faster then an f/4 version. Just the nature of the beast.

3) Most times, the f/4 version wouldn't be very limiting, but there are those times when you just need a little more light!

For instance, last year at the zoo in one of the super dark indoor exhibits I had my 5D at ISO 3200 and my 70-200 set at f/2.8 and I was still only getting shutter speeds of 1/60 or so, and those monkey's move quick! Any slower of a shutter speed and the pictures would have been that much more difficult to get because of motion blur. With an f/4 lens I would have been down to 1/30 or less. Probably wouldn't have gotten any keepers.

Good luck!
Tim


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mr. ­ Clean
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,002 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Olympia, Washington
     
Mar 31, 2008 15:04 |  #10

I hate to sound repetative but it really depends on what you shoot.


Mike
some shots @ Zenfolio (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cosworth
I'm comfortable with my masculinity
Avatar
10,930 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Duncan, BC, Canada
     
Mar 31, 2008 15:07 |  #11

timnosenzo wrote in post #5231965 (external link)
However if you're at f/4 and really need a little more light, only one of these lenses are going to be able to give it to you.

This part is half true. If your subject isn't moving (or not moving much) the extra stop of IS from the F/4 will cancel out the f/2.8 advantage.


people will always try to stop you doing the right thing if it is unconventional
Full frame and some primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattograph
"God bless the new meds"
Avatar
7,693 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
     
Mar 31, 2008 15:09 |  #12

I sold my f/4 is an dgot the 2.8. Could not be happier, but, I was always very pleased with the f/4. In the end, if I had another lens I wanted, I would spend the difference on that, instead of the upgrade.


This space for rent.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,831 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Mar 31, 2008 15:10 |  #13

cosworth wrote in post #5232010 (external link)
This part is half true. If your subject isn't moving (or not moving much) the extra stop of IS from the F/4 will cancel out the f/2.8 advantage.

Definitely.


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cosworth
I'm comfortable with my masculinity
Avatar
10,930 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Duncan, BC, Canada
     
Mar 31, 2008 15:14 |  #14

If I was offered a chance to go back to the f/4 now, I'd decline. I'm on a big DOF/shoot wide open kick right now.


people will always try to stop you doing the right thing if it is unconventional
Full frame and some primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 462
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Mar 31, 2008 15:17 as a reply to  @ timnosenzo's post |  #15

The 2.8 only shines at f/2.8 and...whenever you add a TC into the equation.


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

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

3,229 views & 0 likes for this thread
For those who sold 70-200 F4 IS to get 70-200 F2.8 IS - I want to hear from you!
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 jabes001
941 guests, 327 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.