Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2011 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?
  
 
Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


Alright, here's some of my experience: a few times during a recent trip to China with a 70-200/2.8 IS I ran into situations where f/2.8 does not help - it was too dark and the shutter speed was borderline for stopping subject motion or downright inadequate - yet most of the time I was shooting at medium apertures. Stabilizer was a great asset though. Almost wish I had a 70-200/4 IS + Sigma 85/1.4 with me.
I guess that with modern bodies it's less of an issue as the ISO can be bumped up to ridiculous values - so it also depends on the body the OP is using.



Dec 07, 2011 at 09:11 AM
janmcn
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


Had the 2.8, too heavy and overall large for me, didn't use the 2.8 that often….got the 4.0, loved it…very sharp, easy to carry, etc…..BUT…just got the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS L and LOVE IT! Just as sharp as my 4.0 and even though heavy, is more compact. Checked it against my 70-200 with 1.4x and it's much sharper…so I'll probably keep the 70-300 and sell the 70-200….I'm a total amateur, but have all L lenses for their sharpness. So, you might want to consider the 70-300 that came out last year.


Dec 07, 2011 at 12:32 PM
rick_reno
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I initially tried 3 70-200 lenses; f4 with IS, 2.8 with and without IS. I kept the 2.8 without IS, it's very sharp. I used it for about a year before moving to the 2.8II with IS, the non-IS 2.8 hasn't been out since it arrived. In my limited testing, I've found the VII lens to be little bit sharper at 2.8 than the non-IS 2.8, stopped down the difference is much harder to detect if there is any.


Dec 07, 2011 at 03:14 PM
campyone
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


Bought the f/4. IS vs non-IS and extra speed of the 2.8 weren't important considerations for me, I use a tripod 95% of the time and I seldom need to throw the background way out of focus for the kind of photography I usually do. But the size/weight differential was very important to me, my backpack is heavy enough without adding the 2.8 to it.


Dec 07, 2011 at 03:21 PM
arnold1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I need the 2.8 and 4.0 would not work due to lighting for me. You will need to look at your specific application.


Dec 07, 2011 at 03:32 PM
Gib Robinson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I owned both the 2.8 non IS and the f/4 IS. The difference in size and weight led me to sell the f/2.8. The IS on the f/4 is good enough to make up for the extra stop in most instances and, from my experience, the IQ is better. I have considered upgrading to the f/2.8 IS II but have not done so because I remember how big that lens is and don't want to carry it. If I need speed, I use fixed lenses.

--Gib



Dec 07, 2011 at 03:57 PM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


For my 70-200 use, IS is a godsend, there is not much difference between f2.8 and f4, and weight matters. But then I don't do PJ, sports or fashion and I'm not paid for results. Not many SI swimsuit models hang out where I do most of my photography. So there is a big YMMV here. As someone above said, either you need f2.8 or you don't. The same goes for IS.


Dec 07, 2011 at 04:32 PM
superfrog
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I had the 70-200 2.8 IS and it was a great lens but I ended up selling it and buying a 70-200 4.0 IS and a 135/2 for the same price. Used of course. For me the 4/IS does everything I need because I wasn't using it wide open enough to justify the cost and weight. It is definitely heavy when you are carrying it around which made me hesitate to take it sometime. I can now use the 135 for the times I need a faster lens.

I know you were comparing the non IS of the 2.8 so I am a little bit of topic. Sorry, but just giving my previous experience. As some of the others have said, it really depends on what you are going to shot and how you want to use it. They are both good lenses. Figure out what your needs are and go from there.



Dec 07, 2011 at 04:48 PM
Richard Nye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


This might make it easier to decide:

70-200 f/4 IS
1. smaller, lighter, and for me, much more likely to take with me. Good for travel.
2. good for landscapes because you don't need f/2.8 for landscapes, and the IS works great! No tripod needed.
3. pretty good for outdoor candids because if the smaller size, but you won't get the background blur in most cases

70-200 f/2.8
1. Better lens for sports because you can get the shutter speed up and get good subject isolation.
2. Heavier, larger, and for me, less likely to carry. Not a good travel lens due to size.
3. Great lens for portraits (good subject isolation) and some indoor action (with enough light)
4. Very conspicuous, not a good candid lens, draws attention
5. Image isn't quite as sharp as the f/4 IS



Dec 07, 2011 at 05:26 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



axskkyline
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


Well I came into this before I got my 4L/IS, before getting it, I was lucky enough to try them out at B&H. 4L vs 2.8 is a big weight difference, and also the IS vs non-IS really makes a big difference if you shooting at 120~200mm, it helps you get a sharper image. So for me, less weight + cheaper = more convent. That doesn't mean 2.8L is a bad lens, it's just I can't imagine myself carrying that around too much. I can just be definite about it!


Dec 07, 2011 at 06:07 PM
Langran
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


was simple for me, I wanted f2.8 for shallower DoF and to help with low light. weight didn't bother me at all and I've never been too fussed by IS. it's nice to have but I'm happy without it.


Dec 08, 2011 at 01:47 AM
svassh
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I chose the 2.8L non is but seriously considered the 4L with IS. The reasons I chose the 2.8 is because I rented a 4L without IS and was less than impressed with the low light performance and overall sharpness.

My 2.8 is BIG and Heavy but the fast focus and blurred DOF are wonderful.



Dec 08, 2011 at 02:22 AM
jj_glos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I mainly use mine for sports\action, to be honest f2.8 isn't always fast enough! I actually have the f2.8 IS but haven't found a use for the IS as yet as I rarely take shots of anything that is static. I'm thinking of buying a 135L, then I'll have a 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8 and a 135 f2. I'd consider selling the 70-200 f2.8 IS for a 70-200 f4L then... Or maybe just keeping hold of my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which I have found more than adequate (it's sharper than my 70-200 f2.8 IS) and putting the money towards a 35 f1.4...


Dec 08, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Invertalon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I first started with the 70-200 f/4... My first L... Was blown away with it.

A few months later, I really wanted IS... I saved up and sold the non-IS and bought the IS f/4... I used it for a while. I loved it.

I moved to the f/2.8 II after it came out... After I saw reviews of just how good it was. I sold my 300 f/4 and 135L and picked it up. I have been using it for well over a year now.

It is my favorite of the three I have used. It may be bigger and much more heavy, but I find f/2.8 apertures on telephotos really nice. It is extremely sharp and very versatile. I have been extremely happy with it.



Dec 08, 2011 at 01:12 PM
eSchwab
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I think the Non-IS 2.8 has the longest minimum focus distance. It's enough that it caused more problems than I thought it would with close ups.


Dec 08, 2011 at 01:15 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


eSchwab wrote:
I think the Non-IS 2.8 has the longest minimum focus distance. It's enough that it caused more problems than I thought it would with close ups.


True, although you do need to stop the f/4 IS down to f/5.6 to not get an utter disaster at MFD, granted you may want at least f/5.6 anyway at MFD and having it there in any fashion is better than not at all.



Dec 08, 2011 at 07:06 PM
ZoneV_Nikon
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


Thanks for all the answers! I currently rely on a first-gen Nikkor 80-200/2.8 (doesn't have AF-S), so even the oldest 70-200/2.8 L would be an upgrade. I probably won't buy it anytime soon, due to budget, but it's nice knowing it's an option. I do PJ, and I do rely on the f/2.8 of my Nikkor about half the time, so I'd probably go with the 2.8. Not the magic drainpipe though...I want something a good bit more modern with faster AF, FTM, etc.


Dec 09, 2011 at 04:10 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password