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 2012 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8
  
 
kbarrera
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


I shoot with a 1d MKIV and a 1ds MK II.
Given the higher iso performance of both bodies, would the f/4 be a viable option to the f/2.8 ? I had an older f2.8 non IS which performed beautifully.
Opinions would be appreciated.

Al



Aug 26, 2012 at 03:47 PM
Paulthelefty
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


I say it really depends on what you are shooting, and how much you want to push the iso. I had the f4, and it was a brilliant lens; I really loved it. And for most any outdoor application with decent lighting is was just fine. Then I tried to shoot volleyball in this dingy private gym. F4 just couldn't cut it. I was at iso 3200 and getting shutter speeds in the 1/200-320 range. After that I sold the f4 to help fund a f2.8 and have not looked back.

Sure, you can fix the noise in post, blah blah. I needed to have decent stuff straight out of camera, and that one stop made the difference between what I considered usable or not usable.

So, bottom line, if you don't NEED 2.8, then the f4 is a wonderful lens that you will LOVE!

Paul



Aug 26, 2012 at 04:33 PM
kbarrera
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


Good point. I forgot to mention that I do most of my shooting outdoors. If I were shooting, say, indoor sports, the 2.8 would be a no brainier. My main lens is a 500 f/4 which is no problem at f/4.
So I guess the question is: is the f/4 version as sharp as the 2.8 in good light?


Thanks

Al



Aug 26, 2012 at 05:31 PM
RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


I had an f4IS before I upgraded to the 2.8 IS II. TBH, the iq is about the same except for the fact that when shot wide open, there is less vignetting on the 2.8II and you get better subject isolation. If you can live with the f4 aperture, you won't be disappointed.


Aug 26, 2012 at 05:49 PM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


kbarrera wrote:
Good point. I forgot to mention that I do most of my shooting outdoors. If I were shooting, say, indoor sports, the 2.8 would be a no brainier. My main lens is a 500 f/4 which is no problem at f/4.
So I guess the question is: is the f/4 version as sharp as the 2.8 in good light?

Thanks

Al


Is this sharp enough for you Al

These were shot a few days ago mid-afternoon SoCal sunshine, 50D, 70-200 f4L IS...handheld!
I've a few with a 1.4x II as well if you'd like me to post them? The f4L IS is my fav lens, next to the 100 non-L mac it is sharp as a tack!

Jerry





  Canon EOS 50D    EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens    144mm    f/4.0    1/500s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  






  Canon EOS 50D    EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens    70mm    f/4.0    1/800s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  






  Canon EOS 50D    EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens    191mm    f/5.6    1/800s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  






  Canon EOS 50D    EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens    135mm    f/5.0    1/800s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  



Edited on Aug 26, 2012 at 09:41 PM · View previous versions



Aug 26, 2012 at 05:49 PM
gberger
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


I had the F/4 IS, and now have the F/2.8 II IS. Currently shooting with a 5D MK III.
Honestly, while the F2.8 II is pretty spectacular, I don't think it is that much of an improvement over the F4. And your point about the improved ISO performance of the 5D is right on - you can crank up the ISO fairly high without suffering, which more than compensates for the extra stop of the F2.8. The only real advantage of the 2.8 is that it will take a 2X converter and maintain autofocus, which I find useful on occasion.
That F4 was an amazing lens, I was fortunate to sell it to a good friend, thus 'keeping it in the family'. If he ever decides to get rid of it, I'd buy it back in a flash. It does have the advantage of reduced weight.



Aug 26, 2012 at 06:06 PM
sirimiri
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


More than any other lens pairing I can think of, the difference in most everything between the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 70-200 f/4 IS, is merely 1 stop, the size, and ultimately, the price tag.

They are both truly excellent lenses.



Aug 26, 2012 at 07:33 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


Having owned all of the 70-200 variants, I am now down to just two - the two mentioned here. The most important thing I have to say is that ever since I got the 2.8II, I have not shot a single frame with the f/4 IS. The difference between the two is more than just the aperture. The difference is that the 2.8 is sharper wide open than the f/4 wide open, and sharper across a larger portion of the frame. But more than that, the new 2.8 has a pop and color rendition that puts it into a whole different league of optics. Images do seem to jump off the screen and page in a way no other Canon lens I own renders. Hell, the 2.8II is sharper wide open than my 200 1.8 wide open, although they are equal when the prime is stopped down to match.


Aug 26, 2012 at 07:42 PM
jerrykur
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


I have the f4 IS and f2.8 IS II. Unless I need the 2.8 for subject isolation or low light I will take the f4. The IQ is very close with both lenses producing razor sharp image. The f4 is much smaller and lighter and convenient to carry.

Jerry





Aug 26, 2012 at 08:34 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


I owned both the 70-200/2.8L IS II and 70-200/4L IS for a while, and then sold the f/4L IS. I picked up a 70-200/4L (not IS) for occasional use during travel, but I often take the f/2.8L IS II anyway, if I expect to take a lot of photos.


Aug 26, 2012 at 09:05 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



dmcharg
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


Both are outstanding so you can't go wrong but for sure get the IS version. Both the F4LIS and the F2.8LIS have stunning IQ so i wouldn't worry about IQ. The real question is do you need 2.8 and are you ok with the size/weight of the 2.8 ? The F4 version is an excellent travel lens and the F2.8 is approx twice the weight of the F4 version so there is a huge difference in size/weight. If your going to be doing lots of indoor/lowlight work then get the 2.8IS or a fast prime.


Aug 26, 2012 at 09:52 PM
Charles Gallo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


I technically own both (the F4 is on semi-perm loan to my godson). For ME, the big difference is/was the ability to get more subject isolation by going 2.8 vs f4. That said, I'm thinking of calling him to see if I can borrow the F4 for a trip next week, so I don't have to lug the 2.8 with me


Aug 26, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


Canon 70-200 f/4L IS on a 5Dc...all hand held...

189mm, ISO 50, f/8, 1/125, morning light







Paddock lunch time...
138mm, ISO 50, f/5, 1/200








Pit area
138mm, ISO 50, f/4, 1/200















Aug 26, 2012 at 10:52 PM
kbarrera
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


Well alright then. I will begin my search for the f/4 IS version. All of the input was much appreciated.
The photos posted said it all. Thanks to all who responded.


Al



Aug 27, 2012 at 12:01 AM
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


Both have excellent IQ as others have said.
My one additional note - my f4 IS isn't super sharp at MFD.
What have others experienced in this regard?



Aug 27, 2012 at 03:00 AM
BluesWest
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


Honestly, while the F2.8 II is pretty spectacular, I don't think it is that much of an improvement over the F4.

the new 2.8 has a pop and color rendition that puts it into a whole different league of optics.

One person claims the f/2.8 is not that much of an improvement over the f/4. Another claims the f/2.8 is in "a whole different league of optics". What is a reader to make of such disparate opinions? IMO, these types of conflicting claims -- which occur in just about every thread of this category -- suggest that asking someone else their opinion on what lens to buy is a waste of time.

John



Aug 27, 2012 at 03:08 AM
umihoshijima
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


I think it's the people who REALLY benefit from that stop - indoor sports, for example - that consider the 2.8 IS mk2 a cut above the rest. It seems as though the outside shooters are feeling comfortable with the sharpness of the f/4 at wide-open.

On another note, are the f/4 and the f/4 IS identical optical formulas? or like some lenses, is the IS softer than the non-IS?



Aug 27, 2012 at 03:12 AM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


I think that if you are going to shoot indoor sports, unless very well illuminated, f/2.8 is at best on the edge...you might be better off with an 85 f/1,8 or 135 f/2L...


Aug 27, 2012 at 03:23 AM
gberger
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


BluesWest wrote:
One person claims the f/2.8 is not that much of an improvement over the f/4. Another claims the f/2.8 is in "a whole different league of optics". What is a reader to make of such disparate opinions? IMO, these types of conflicting claims -- which occur in just about every thread of this category -- suggest that asking someone else their opinion on what lens to buy is a waste of time.

John


Well, being the author of the first quote, all I can say is that the OP will not go wrong with either lens and I think that is what he was trying to find out here. Even if someone says the 2.8 is in another class, that doesn't mean the F/4 is a slouch...far from it. Just check the reviews, many of which say it is the best zoom ever made by anyone (maybe until the 2.8 II arrived). The issues being discussed are 1) Is the extra stop really that important? and 2) Is the optical quality that much better? I think both questions have been answered, even if opinions differ. The OP now has to decide for himself.



Aug 27, 2012 at 03:24 AM
Paulthelefty
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · Canon 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8


umihoshijima wrote:
On another note, are the f/4 and the f/4 IS identical optical formulas? or like some lenses, is the IS softer than the non-IS?


IIRC, the IS actually renders more LPI than the non-IS in testing... So a bit sharper for the IS.

Paul



Aug 27, 2012 at 04:00 AM
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