70-200L f/2.8 vs 70-200L f/4: The battle @ f/4

CheshireCat wrote in post #9256100
Just because it is true it doesn't mean you will notice it if I do that only one time on a raw image

my point was that you may not notice it, but someone else may notice it...and the other point is that you said canonnoob was incorrect and i pointed out that he was indeed correct - rotating can degrade the image...

thaking wrote in post #9256619
my point was that you may not notice it, but someone else may notice it...and the other point is that you said canonnoob was incorrect and i pointed out that he was indeed correct - rotating can degrade the image...

Wait a minute... I never said that canonnoob is incorrect !
And in fact both of you are correct.

BUT

I just want to make clear that worrying about a single image rotation, properly performed on the raw data, makes even less sense than worrying about the differences between these two lenses.
After all technicalities we know but should not worry about is the whole point of this thread

CheshireCat wrote in post #9257154
Wait a minute... I never said that canonnoob is incorrect !
And in fact both of you are correct.

you're correct - it wasn't you...my bad...:o

CheshireCat wrote in post #9257154
BUT

I just want to make clear that worrying about a single image rotation, properly performed on the raw data, makes even less sense than worrying about the differences between these two lenses.
After all technicalities we know but should not worry about is the whole point of this thread

that's exactly right...

im wondering the same thing. I just bought a f/4.0L, and am trying to see if I need the 2.8. What do you think the DOF difference will be between 200mm at f/4 and f/2.8? Does anyone have any samples? other than the 1 stop diff, i dont see anything else that is better. Price is not a factor for me.

ilumo wrote in post #9258067
im wondering the same thing. I just bought a f/4.0L, and am trying to see if I need the 2.8. What do you think the DOF difference will be between 200mm at f/4 and f/2.8? Does anyone have any samples? other than the 1 stop diff, i dont see anything else that is better. Price is not a factor for me.

When you get into shadows it's easy to run out of light. One f/stop almost doubles the light gathering capability of the lense which helps put it into prospective.
200mm is where the f/2.8 is the weakest, but still very usable. Most use the 2.8 version wide open much of the time, and many like myself seldom stop it down. So yeah, on both counts there is a difference.

Content warning: script

rijndael wrote in post #9252169
Thanks. I'm familiar with the numbers @ the distances I want to shoot at. f/4 will suite my needs. For a quick and dirty look at the numbers I use this: http://www.dofmaster.c​om/doftable.html

Other than the added AF precision, I'm struggling to significantly nudge myself in either direction.

The aperture and AF are the only two reasons to get the 2.8 over the 4. But, those are two very big differences. Once again, look up DoF and see if that's important to you.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9258716
The aperture and AF are the only two reasons to get the 2.8 over the 4. But, those are two very big differences. Once again, look up DoF and see if that's important to you.

except if you don't need the extra stop then size, weight, 4-stop IS, price, and superior IQ are five very compelling reasons to opt for the sharpest zoom lens canon makes .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #9258735
except if you don't need the extra stop then size, weight, 4-stop IS, price, and superior IQ are five very compelling reasons to opt for the sharpest zoom lens canon makes .

... ?!

I think it's up to 654,732 times that this topic has come up.

[QUOTE=CheshireCat;925​9331[B]]... ?![/quote]

MTF (resolution)

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS is the very best zoom lens tested to date in Canon mount. The resolution figures (center/border) at all focal length and all tested aperture settings are nothing short of stunning and also as good as the best fix-focals in this range. At f/11 there´s the usual decline in quality due to diffraction - this is a physical limit. Truly remarkable.

http://www.photozone.d​e …-l-is-test-report--review

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #9258735
except if you don't need the extra stop then size, weight, 4-stop IS, price, and superior IQ are five very compelling reasons to opt for the sharpest zoom lens canon makes .

ed rader

The 2.8s are far from soft. And of course nothing you say matters if you need a fast lens. Here are two pictures, including a crop, that show the lowly 7-2 2.8 is far from chopped liver and really, only pixel peepers will tell a difference between lenses, no matter what laboratory tests tell.

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

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

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9260262
The 2.8s are far from soft. And of course nothing you say matters if you need a fast lens. Here are two pictures, including a crop, that show the lowly 7-2 2.8 is far from chopped liver and really, only pixel peepers will tell a difference between lenses, no matter what laboratory tests tell.

yeah if if if... i thought i already addressed that ?

ed rader

Well done to the person who started this thread.

I just bought the 70-200 F2.8 non IS last week,so was most interested in this test.

I was worried after purchase ,about what i hear about the F 4 being sharper.well it

is like the fellow who made the comment about various brands of shavers-does it really

matter which one you get,there all going to be sharp.

I made the decesion on the fact that i will be using the lens in low light situations regularly.

If that is'nt an issue,buy the F 4,all up no matter which version of the 70-200 you own or buy

you are going to get a very good,capable lens,i do'nt think i have ever seen a negative comment on

any of these lens,appart from IS issues.

regards A14

ilumo wrote in post #9258067
im wondering the same thing. I just bought a f/4.0L, and am trying to see if I need the 2.8. What do you think the DOF difference will be between 200mm at f/4 and f/2.8? Does anyone have any samples? other than the 1 stop diff, i dont see anything else that is better. Price is not a factor for me.

Don't have a DOF shot from an F4 but heres one from a 2.8 at 2.8 200mm straight from the camera.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/42427406@N05/4​208416013/

AMD87 wrote in post #9260865
Don't have a DOF shot from an F4 but heres one from a 2.8 at 2.8 200mm straight from the camera.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/42427406@N05/4​208416013/

What is that?

edit: my bad! I was looking at it on my laptop. Don't ask!