Canon Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L EF IS USM vs. f/4L EF IS USM

hello. tryin' to decide between the two lens below:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

or

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

i will be shooting mostly landscapes, portraits and occassional motosports.

can someone break it down for me as to what the major difference is? i'm basically trying to figure out if it's worth the additional $500+ dollars for the f/2.8.

supporting pix would be nice.!

hi macfly

this topic has been discussed ad nauseum...a quick search will unveil a heap of threads which will cover most, if not all of your questions

F2.8 will gain you a F stop over the the f4 So you can use that as a faster shutter or as a smaller apeture .
You can also half the ISO Speed - so theres 3 things you have greater control over by going f2.8
In most real world shooting it will make very little diffrence however at times it could make the diffrence of getting a shot or not getting a shot .
Rob.

GyRob wrote in post #6640122
F2.8 will gain you a F stop over the the f4 So you can use that as a faster shutter or as a smaller apeture .
You can also half the ISO Speed - so theres 3 things you have greater control over by going f2.8
In most real world shooting it will make very little diffrence however at times it could make the diffrence of getting a shot or not getting a shot .
Rob.

thank you for your input.

i'm assuming the f/2.8L would come in handy in low light indoor party setting?!

from wha i've read, the f/4L is going to be sharper vs. f/2.8L - very interesting!

MacFly wrote in post #6640139
thank you for your input.

i'm assuming the f/2.8L would come in handy in low light indoor party setting?!

from wha i've read, the f/4L is going to be sharper vs. f/2.8L - very interesting!

yes the f2.8 will help in low light and thats the main thing.
as for sharpness i do belive the f4 is sharper by a little but then if you stoped down the f2.8 to f4 i dont think you would see any diffrence .
there must be test here on POTN about that.
Rob

MacFly wrote in post #6640139
thank you for your input.

i'm assuming the f/2.8L would come in handy in low light indoor party setting?!

The f/2.8 is one stop faster, a lot heavier and more expensive. That's about it. Don't expect to see IQ differences.

So you simply need to decide if the faster lens is worth it to you. The more you need to blur out backgrounds or shoot in low light the more valuable the faster lens will be.

A few reviews have noted that the f/4 is extremely sharp wide open, perhaps even an insignificantly small amount sharper than the f/2.8. It's nothing you will really notice. The f/2.8 is extremely sharp and you should not try and decide between these based on some potential sharpness difference as it simply isn't going to matter.

Ignore most of the IQ issues. The real differences between these lenses are

- cost (f/2.8 is a lot more money)
- weight (f/2.8 is a lot heavier)
- DOF (f/2.8 gives shallower DOF)

If you want a lens for indoor shots, you could go f/4 IS plus a flash and get great bounce flash shots. Or go f/4 plus another prime lens (85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4?) to let in even more light that the big heavy f/2.8 zoom

In the end only you can decide based on your shooting situation and needs.

Oh, and the f/4 IS is wicked sharp. Mine is as sharp as my prime lenses - wonderful!

A 70-200 would not see much use at an indoor party unless it was in a large hall, imo. I guess you can peg it at 70mm and shoot away. There are far better lenses for that purpose. One lens can't do everything, well.

A lot of people automatically go for the IS version, but do you really need the IS?
or would you rather have the 2.8 non IS for the same price as the f4 IS

The only time the IS is turned off on my f4IS is when I am shooting using fast panning and/or high speed, such as action sports. Not something I shoot often.

Shooting in lower light, such as stage shows, candids and shutter speeds around 1/100 at 200mm..... the IS is a godsend.

The 70-200 f4 IS is also, often, my walkaround lens. I couldn't imagine lugging around the 2.8 all day. I'm not a masochist

bohdank wrote in post #6640610
A 70-200 would not see much use at an indoor party unless it was in a large hall, imo. I guess you can peg it at 70mm and shoot away. There are far better lenses for that purpose. One lens can't do everything, well.

great point. i'im tryin' to find two GOOD lens to keep in my bag. i def want a good zoom lens and another lens for parties. what other small lens would you suggest?

everyone - thank you for all yoru valueable input. as i was never considering the f/4L IS before, now is a serious contender. the fact that the only two advantages the 2.8 has is low light and shallower DOF (which i love, but is it really worth the additional $500+?). and not to mention it's much heavier. i try to carry as compact of a bag as possible and i think the 2.8 would totally kill that idea!

I've got the F4L IS, and It's been great to me. I got it over the 2.8 for price alone.

Eigtball wrote in post #6642024
I've got the F4L IS, and It's been great to me. I got it over the 2.8 for price alone.

any sample pix?

mind asking how much you paid and where you purchased it?

MacFly wrote in post #6639902
supporting pix would be nice.!

there is a whole section for that.

If you plan to rely a lot on that for portraiture, go 2.8.
Bokeh is fabulous and it,s a fantastic portrait lens.