70-200f4L IS vs 70-200f2.8L

This is not like some sort of contest to see who can do what and carry what. Just take a photo, use any lens you can. Enjoy life.

There are different tools for everyone's needs. If you can carry a lot of weight and don’t mind it then you can buy a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. If you want to have less weight then carry a different lens.

Saying, “Why can’t they all just up their weight and work it out and be quiet? “
There are at least 50% of the guys at the gym who could say the same about single arm curls with 45 lbs weight vs. the rest of us using < 25lbs weight. Those “others people” are possibly not able to up / improve their weight for real reasons that should not be discounted and we should not be-little them or their needs. If you say that “everyone should use a 70-200 2.8” then you are mistaken, many +50 year old grandmas who take photos that can never steady something that heavy on a camera. They can choose a different lens that works well for their needs, no need to shove your 70-200 2.8 down their throats like; it’s the only present for Xmas they can have or else it is coal.

We can all say what works for us, but I don’t think anyone should point fingers calling other people un reasonable or weaklings for wanting a lighter kit.

crowflyawa wrote in post #9419125
This is not like some sort of contest to see who can do what and carry what. Just take a photo, use any lens you can. Enjoy life.

There are different tools for everyone's needs. If you can carry a lot of weight and don’t mind it then you can buy a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. If you want to have less weight then carry a different lens.

Saying, “Why can’t they all just up their weight and work it out and be quiet? “
There are at least 50% of the guys at the gym who could say the same about single arm curls with 45 lbs weight vs. the rest of us using < 25lbs weight. Those “others people” are possibly not able to up / improve their weight for real reasons that should not be discounted and we should not be-little them or their needs. If you say that “everyone should use a 70-200 2.8” then you are mistaken, many +50 year old grandmas who take photos that can never steady something that heavy on a camera. They can choose a different lens that works well for their needs, no need to shove your 70-200 2.8 down their throats like; it’s the only present for Xmas they can have or else it is coal.

We can all say what works for us, but I don’t think anyone should point fingers calling other people un reasonable or weaklings for wanting a lighter kit.

All I'm saying is it isn't an even trade by a long shot. Nothing will change that... The f/4 version is lighter, but even at f/2.8 the Beast is sharp by any standard. The latest generation of pro bodies AF still work best with a f/2.8 or faster lense.

When you get to 300mm and beyond I can see the size/weight argument as being a bit more valid. The Beast however really isn't that big or heavy if handled properly.
By trading off a pound or so of weight, you diminish the versatility and usability of this lense a lot.
It will cost you keepers in daylight and certainly as twilight falls.

70-200 @200mm, f/2.8 @1/80 sec, ISO6400, exp comp+2/3

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

How hard is it to hand hold the 2.8IS?
Is a tripod/monopod necessary?

Rubberhead wrote in post #9414456
Not every shot is at wide-open aperature.

One thing for sure is that you can't handhold the f/2.8L non-IS much below 1/320 while you can the f/4L IS easily down to 1/25 or slower.

The advantage to an f/2.8 lens is that most Canon cameras have more sensitive AF points that go into operation when f/2.8 or faster lens is mounted. On the 1Dmk3 there is even a cross type sensor in the center that will do this at f/4 or faster, but for most of the other bodies it is at f/2.8 or faster.

What that means is that your AF system is more accurate with a faster lens on board. If you shoot sports, this is a big deal for a tele especially in low contrast or poor lighting. So, while you may not shoot at f/2.8, your AF will be better with the faster lens.

J.

I have both IS lenses, f/4 and f/2.8. The f/4 is great and goes on vacation. Though when light starts to fall, I have to stop shooting, or switch to a normal prime. The f/2.8 is also great and comes out when I need the speed, the background blur it gives and complete sense of versatility, come what may.

The 2.8 requires a strong left arm; that’s what bears the weight. With the f/4, you are mostly holding the entire rig with the right hand; the left sort of goes along for the ride.

I disagree about the 2.8 weight negating the IS. I get sharp images with it by handholding. You learn to work it right.

Put on an R-strap and the entire weight issue is a non-issue. The puppy rides by my side when, for instance, downing a hot dog. I shot an airshow standing all day in the sand by the shore with the 2.8 L IS to no ill effect except for some sunburn and weird tan lines.

stitchbug wrote in post #9420229
How hard is it to hand hold the 2.8IS?
Is a tripod/monopod necessary?

No! I carry this lense sometimes for 6-8 hours, mostly in my hand(s), under my arm, or slinged if there's nothing to shoot.
Most handhold this lense... a monopod if your at a race track or such all day. I never do though, but I will lean on anything in sight...

blackhawk wrote in post #9420210
.... By trading off a pound or so of weight, you diminish the versatility and usability of this lense a lot.
It will cost you keepers in daylight and certainly as twilight falls.
...

And this is all that needs to be said on the subject

Perfect_10 wrote in post #9417622
I'm beginning to wonder what all the nay-sayers with sore wrists are doing with their hands/arms to make them sore .. it ain't from carrying lenses about, that's for sure

I guess you're referring to me, as I'm the only one who mentioned a sore wrist. Rheumatoid arthritis, my friend. If you don't know what it is, look it up. I hope you never get it; I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

To get back to the lens discussion, this is one of those questions that has no answer. Some people swear by the f/2.8, others by the f/4 IS. It depends what you want. In my case, when the f/4 isn't enough, I break out my primes. I originally bought the f/2.8 so I'd have the option of shooting indoor sports, but in the end even it didn't let enough light in for my particular sport. So I lost nothing by swapping it for a f/4 lens with IS; on the contrary, I gained what is, for me, a far more usable lens. Not only do I use it more because it's easier to carry, but I actually get more low-light non-action keepers because of the IS. IMHO "better" doesn't come into this discussion, but "more useful" does - and every photographer has his or her own definition of "useful". There's no one-size-fits-all answer. You weigh up the pros and cons, and make your choice. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me. They're both awesome lenses.

crowflyawa wrote in post #9420662
But, umm, if that's true, then you better have something below f/2.8 if you need low light and you expect keepers. As the photo above demonstrate iso 6400 and f/2.8 is a poor replacement for the image you could have taken with a f/1.4 lens and iso 800 or 1/160 shutter preventing the motion blur.

I keep seeing the argument on here that if you need a lens for lower light situations, then f/2.8 is useless, as if there is only ever a need for f/4 or slower lenses in good light, or f/1.4 or faster lenses in low light. There is definitely a middle ground where the f/2.8 is useful for its increased light gathering ability (on top of the increased background blur).

It's not a magical solution, but 2x the light helps exactly that much, which is something to consider.

kostka wrote in post #9420859
I keep seeing the argument on here that if you need a lens for lower light situations, then f/2.8 is useless, as if there is only ever a need for f/4 or slower lenses in good light, or f/1.4 or faster lenses in low light. There is definitely a middle ground where the f/2.8 is useful for its increased light gathering ability (on top of the increased background blur).

It's not a magical solution, but 2x the light helps exactly that much, which is something to consider.

Everyone should realize that F/2.8 is double, but still is not that much extra light compared to f/4 really, but if you want to play the game of "every stop counts", then f/2.8 hardly helps as much as one needs for low light enterainment and night time sports shooting. Often these venues are -7 ev or more. We all usually want/need a lens that can go 4 stops not just 1 stop more light when the sun goes down.

Bottom line, buy only what you need, and nothing more - and learn to use light creatively.

crowflyawa wrote in post #9420662
But, umm, if that's true, then you better have something below f/2.8 if you need low light and you expect keepers. As the photo above demonstrate iso 6400 and f/2.8 is a poor replacement for the image you could have taken with a f/1.4 lens and iso 800 or 1/160 shutter preventing the motion blur. Everyone should realize that F/2.8 is double, but still is not that much extra light compared to f/4 really, but if you want to play the game of "every stop counts", then f/2.8 hardly helps as much as one needs for low light enterainment and night time sports shooting.

if Canon made a 70-200 1.8 then it would be the lens everyone argued over too and would weight 10 lbs maybe instead of 3 lbs or 1.5 lbs.
Many would still say "it dont make my arm tired!" no matter how heavy it is.


-Steve

Double the amount of light is a lot more light.
No other Canon zoom can do what the 70-200 f/2.8 can.
Even at 1/80 of a second the older generation of IS has all you need to grab action shots... and fast aperture the AF systems needs in low light.

Same settings as above except 1/125 sec, on the 1DMK-3

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

I still say the image would look so much better on a f/1.8 lens at lower ISO.
So why not try it?

if you say double the light is good, what's tripple the light?

the 85 1.8 is a nice cheap way to find out.


Everyone should realize that F/2.8 is double, but still is not that much extra light compared to f/4 really, but if you want to play the game of "every stop counts", then f/2.8 hardly helps as much as one needs for low light enterainment and night time sports shooting. Often these venues are -7 ev or more. We all usually want/need a lens that can go 4 stops not just 1 stop more light when the sun goes down.

Bottom line, buy only what you need, and nothing more - and learn to use light creatively.

crowflyawa wrote in post #9421012
I still say the image would look so much better on a f/1.8 lens at lower ISO.
So why not try it?

if you say double the light is good, what's tripple the light?

the 85 1.8 is a nice cheap way to find out.

This is street shooting, peeps don't wait for you to get into position with a fixed focal length lense. That last shot was at 200mm, the len's weakest range, and in low light... that sums up why I shoot with the f/2.8 IS version.

I made use of the 70-200's entire focal range that night...
I really have no desire for any of the 85mm lenses as they don't fit well with my shooting styles.

blackhawk wrote in post #9421115
This is street shooting, peeps don't wait for you to get into position with a fixed focal length lense. That last shot was at 200mm, the len's weakest range, and in low light... that sums up why I shoot with the f/2.8 IS version.

I made use of the 70-200's entire focal range that night...
I really have no desire for any of the 85mm lenses as they don't fit well with my shooting styles.

plenty of other low light lenses than 85mm.
good luck have fun.