p.1 #1 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
Hello All,
As I am sure most of you have gone through, I am torn about buying the 2.8, or 2.8 IS model of the 70-200 .
I read mixed reviews on its performance difference between the F4 version.
I do realize, F 2.8 is a full stop faster than F4, however, can't that be compensated by upping the iso (for example, 2.8 @ iso 100 compared to 4 @ iso 200) ?
the reason I am posting, is for advice from those who have L fever, and to see if the upgrade is worth it?
The things I like to shoot the most, are people, places and things. Outside, I can not see any real advantage (as I use a monopod with my F4) , but inside, other than being able to be hand held better (with is) , i cant see a major advantage that upping the iso cant handle.
The thing that brought this all on, was I was looking into buying a 300 F4 IS, and extender. Then thought perhaps to sell my 70-200 F4 and buty a 70-200 IS + extender (which would cost roughly the same with my F4 sold) . I know I would lose 25% range or so, but I am trying to get the best bang for my buck.
Hopefully my rant isnt to confusing. If you have any advice, please let me know. Especially if the switch from an F4 to a 2.8 was realyl worth the huge cost difference.
p.1 #2 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
well, i have the F4 and while i love it's size, optical quality, and its color recreation, i would love to have a faster lens too giving less DOF... i've seen really great shots with both though. the other option to also consider would perhaps be the sigma 2.8 version which i believe is cheaper than a used 2.8 non-IS version. however, i have personally not used that lens, or any of the 2.8s for that matter.
this is a tough choice. for me it was easy b/c my pocketbook wouldn't allow anything but the f4. good luck.
Jul 23, 2005 at 11:14 PM
trijicon Offline • • • [X]
p.1 #3 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
HUGE difference! I always shooting between f2.8 and f3.5. Mostly for wedding work. Even with the 20D's great iso capabilities I won't push the ISO past 800. ISO 1600 still needs PS work. The extra stop give you so much, nice DOF, faster shutter with normal ISO setting, also important for a tele lense. I have the IS version and I just shot a dark wedding in the church at 1/30th shutters speeds. Plus, when you upgrade your body, the faster glass improves AF dramatically. If I you can swing it, I'd save and get the IS version, in the long run it will save you money buying and selling and buying and selling.
p.1 #4 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
Depends on your light levels. Sometimes even f/2.8 seems too slow. I mean, when you're already at ISO 3200, 1/60, and f/1.4 . . . even f/1.4 can seem too slow then.
Also, f/2.8 (or faster) kicks the AF into a more precise mode on the 20D and 1-series bodies.
p.1 #5 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
The F4 is a very nice lens but speed is everything when even one stop different is significant. The F2.8 will give you tremendous flexibility. Between IS and Non IS both are great lens just depend on your pocket.
-Son
Jul 23, 2005 at 11:47 PM
The Big Bad Offline • • • • [X]
p.1 #6 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
I like having both
for hiking and applicatons such as landscapes where Im stopping down and using a tripod anyways, the f4 is great due to its low weight
for sports and other things where I need to get a minimum shutter speed, the f2.8 is really great to have, and with IS its very useful for places where I cant or dont want to have a tripod
sometimes the difference means getting shots and other times its just carrying a bigger heavier lens around
p.1 #8 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
Outdoors there are more critters out and about in the early morning/evening when the light is low and IS can play a key role. Here's 2 sample shots from my last camping trip in the Sierras. Both are at the maximum range of the 70-200, one with the 1.4TC. Although they are not museum quality, they are just fine for the family vacation album.
It is very questionable if they would have still been keepers w/o the IS to steady the lens. Likewise, when you encounter these animals ther is usually no time to switch ISO settings.
My day hiking lenses are the 17-40 with the 135 and 1.4TC or the 70-200 IS w/1.4TC. I have a padded belt holster for the off-camera lens.
p.1 #11 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
My feeling is that anyone who can afford the 2.8 shouldn't think twice about it. The difference between 4 and 2.8 may not seem big now but it will once you start shoot and realize that some of your shots could have great rather than good if you had the extra stop.
p.1 #12 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
I just got back from shooting an Arena football game. My exposure was as follows: 1/500s @ f/2.8 ISO 3200. I would have been out of luck with f/4 glass. Yes, it DOES make a difference.
p.1 #13 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
2.8 has option of shallower DOF.
Jul 24, 2005 at 12:56 AM
The Big Bad Offline • • • • [X]
p.1 #14 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
as others have shown, depending on what you do it makes a huge difference or it doesnt.
to say if you have the money you should get the 2.8 automatically though I dont think makes sense.
why haul 2.8 glass around on the hiking trail if you only shoot landscapes and work from a tripod ?
why spend money so you can shoot sports in low light if you have no intrest in doing that nor is it your job ?
For me personally, I would only own the f4 version if I only took photos for enjoyment. I like landscape/city shooting and dont need the speed nor do I enjoy the weight. For my shallow DOF work I enjoy using primes like the 135 f2 or 85 1.2
however I also shoot for a living and im chief photography/photo editor for a weekly publication so I do need to be able to go shoot events, sports etc and as such I own the f2.8. The f4 simply would not get the job done for me.
p.1 #16 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
If I had to schlepp photo gear around all day, day-in/day-out for a living, I'd probably be adverse to carrying it around on my vacation too!
On a day hike, the 70-200IS on-camera or in a belt holster is no problem for me. Sure beats the hell out of carrying a tripod instead. I'll tell you that IS and extra stop have come on real handy for me!
p.1 #18 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
DavidP wrote:
... I mean, when you're already at ISO 3200, 1/60, and f/1.4 . . . even f/1.4 can seem too slow then.
David,
what are you shooting in those conditions. I've been known to shoot night sport with my ancient D30 - ISO 1600 (its max), f2.8 1/200, and all that is about 1 stop underexposed (oh, how I want a 200/1.8). So you are shooting in 3 2/3 stops darker light - what are you using as light, a single match? Care to post some samples?
p.1 #19 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
EB-1 wrote:
That is what I was thinking. And the 70-200/4 should be at least as sharp at f/10 and probably a bit contrastier.
According to my measurements with Imatest, 70-200f4L is slightly sharper at 135mm than 70-200f2.8L IS, at all apertures (from f4, that is but less sharp at 200mm. Though, the difference in both cases is so small that it is within measurement error. The f4 version has slightly less CA, but it vignettes at f4 which f2.8 does not do (naturally it does vignette at f2.8).
My conclusion is that sharpness is not a selection criteria between f2.8 and f4 versions, but lens speed is. And IS, which is a boost of three apertures in handheld static situations. So the total difference, in certain applications, is four aperture stops! That was large enough for me, but might not be that important to others.
p.1 #20 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
Okay, now for a reply to the OP. I started with the f4 and moved to the f2.8 non-IS. As you see from my previous post, sometimes it is just not fast enough. Sometimes there is no more ISO to be upped, sometimes the background does need to be blurred that little bit extra.
That being said though, it is a substantially heavier lens (not that it bothers me, like it does others). I chose to not go the IS route, as 1) money was an issue 2) I mainly use it for sports with a monopod 3) my main problem is motion blur, not camera shake.
For portraiture, candid snaps, the 2.8 foes give a lovely low DoF too.
i've seen really great shots with both though. the other option to also consider would perhaps be the sigma 2.8 version which i believe is cheaper than a used 2.8 non-IS version. however, i have personally not used that lens, or any of the 2.8s for that matter.
but less sharp at 200mm. Though, the difference in both cases is so small that it is within measurement error. The f4 version has slightly less CA, but it vignettes at f4 which f2.8 does not do (naturally it does vignette at f2.8).