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

  

Archive 2013 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question
  
 
mirkoc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


According to some and from samples seen, F4 has relatively nice and smooth (for a zoom) and F2 IS II comparatively not so smooth bokeh. Being spoiled by 135/3.5 and 180/2.8 CSJ Sonnars and to a degree with 105/2.5 Ai, I wonder if I am going to be disappointed with the zoom in that regard when I ultimately buy one. I understand that in all of the other 'technical' characteristics, these are cream of the crop of current zooms and versatile - that's why I am considering them.

For those of you lucky ones that have both of these gems, can you please post direct bokeh comparison at F2.8 and F4, or just share your opinion?

Also, beside weight difference, is the 2.8 version considerably better in Ai servo AF mode being 2.8? My camera is 5dIII.

In short:
F4 - not so heavy and possibly smoother bokeh VS F2.8 - better AF and light gathering capability
(price is also a consideration but not in a long term)



Feb 20, 2013 at 11:37 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


Having owned both the 70-200/4L IS and 70-200/2.8 L IS II, and three others of the same lineage, I'd say the opposite. I much prefer the bokeh on the f/2.8L IS II. I also have the 135/2L and most other fast L primes. I don't hesitate to use the MK II zoom on the basis of bokeh expectations. I go to the fast primes when I want shallower DOF and/or faster shutter speed. I sold the 70-200/2.8L IS because I never used it. Then, I bought a 70-200/4L for travel and walkabouts. Recently, I sold it because I never use it. YMMV.


Feb 21, 2013 at 12:15 AM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


Canon 70-200 f/4L IS...Canon 5Dc...Av






138mm
ISO 50
1/320 @ f/4






138mm
ISO 50
1/200 @ f/5






150mm
ISO 50
1/250 @ f/4

Last shot was also shot through a chain link fence...

Don't have the f/2.8...I shoot 90% in good light and can do without the extra weight...

I have a Canon 200 f/2.8L that has, IMHO, great bokeh, and a Canon 50 f/1.4 that's not bad...despite it's rep..

Jefferson



Feb 21, 2013 at 12:59 AM
Mirek Elsner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


mirkoc wrote:
F4 - not so heavy and possibly smoother bokeh VS F2.8 - better AF and light gathering capability
(price is also a consideration but not in a long term)


Neither has especially beautiful bokeh (for my taste), but I prefer the 2.8. One notable feature of the 2.8 is excellent correction of chromatic aberrations, so that you won't see any purple or green bokeh coloration that can often spoil the look of out of focus areas with some lenses.

The differences in optical performance, AF speed and IS are subtle. The most important difference is greater versatility vs. greater portability.



Feb 21, 2013 at 05:31 AM
mirkoc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


Thanks for your comments and samples jcolwell, Jefferson and Mirek. Nice to know about 2.8 being better regarding LoCA correction.


Feb 21, 2013 at 05:39 PM
kezeka
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


I prefer the bokeh on the 2.8 mkII to my previously owned mkI despite what most reviewers have claimed. It isn't as perfect as the 85L nor 35L but when I need a zoom, I need a zoom and the 2.8 mkII is definitely the only zoom I plan on having in my bag for the foreseeable future.

I think a lot of the argument comes down to weight between the 2.8 and 4. Have only used a 4 once and it was a perfectly adequate experience. I am used to carrying gear around for 8 hour days at music festivals or 3 hour football games so its worth it to have the low light/slim depth of field abilities of a 2.8 to me.

As in every case, it all comes down to your usage case and personal preferences. They both have good bokeh and won't let you down (though I know that makes your choice none the easier).



Feb 22, 2013 at 07:49 AM
irieweasel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


I have a couple of wedding examples of bokeh from each on a 7D (below). Can't comment directly on servo performance as I mostly shoot weddings/portraits and use single-shot AF... but that said, AF feels a bit quicker on the 2.8L IS II than the 4L. I prefer the bokeh from the 2.8, and it's much easier to get oof backgrounds with the extra stop.

First is 70-200 f/2.8L IS II both at f/2.8:











And then the 70-200 f/4L IS both at f/4:











I can send plenty more examples or full res if you'd like to see. Feel free to PM.
Dave



Feb 22, 2013 at 02:53 PM
mirkoc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


kezeka wrote:
I prefer the bokeh on the 2.8 mkII to my previously owned mkI despite what most reviewers have claimed. It isn't as perfect as the 85L nor 35L but when I need a zoom, I need a zoom and the 2.8 mkII is definitely the only zoom I plan on having in my bag for the foreseeable future.


I expect the zooms to give some extra quality to files because of framing flexibility due to moving dancers or restricted maneuverability at classical concerts (my main reasons for the zoom). Without having to crop, there should be more tonality along with greater pixel count. How does it work in practice?


irieweasel wrote:
I have a couple of wedding examples of bokeh from each on a 7D (below).

I can send plenty more examples or full res if you'd like to see. Feel free to PM.
Dave


Nice pictures Dave, very relevant because of busy background in all of them. I don't see any meaningful difference here regarding bokeh. Thanks for the kind offer, full res isn't needed, I believe they are both sharp enough. Be free to post some more here if you wish, that would be nice.



Feb 22, 2013 at 10:27 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



irieweasel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


OK, no problem at all. A few more...definitely a gamish. 7D or 5DII for all, and I tried to select max aperture for each lens, but there are a few f/4.5 or others from the f/4L (exif is intact).

Happy to compare 85/135 etc if you would like. For the record, I do like both 70-200s quite a bit (and have owned the 2.8 IS v1).

Dave

70-200 f/2.8L IS II


























70-200 f/4L IS



























Feb 23, 2013 at 02:33 AM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


focus speed is ever so slightly faster on the 4L IS, esp in tracking (less glass to move). your decision should be primarily be based on cost, weight, and if you need the 2.8. its really that simple. the rest, you are just splitting hair. and I do own both.


Feb 23, 2013 at 08:28 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


Best bokeh probably comes from the old 80-200L MDP .
But you obviously loose IS and the AF is not as fast .

I own the MDP and can't bring myself (due mainly to cost) to upgrade to te 2.8 mk2 . I am tempted however to get a f4 IS for its extra portability .

If your concerned with bokeh quality (there's much more to a photo than the bokeh you know)
Then you can only really judge both from f4 as any comparison at 2.8/4 is unfair .

Truth be told both are excellent lenses and both produce stunning images .
If bokeh is your only consideration (with af) then get a 135L and 200/2L (or even better a 200/1.8) oh and you may as well throw a 85L in there as well
Just my 2cents



Feb 23, 2013 at 08:48 AM
mirkoc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


kevindar wrote:
your decision should be primarily be based on cost, weight, and if you need the 2.8. its really that simple. the rest, you are just splitting hair. and I do own both.


I guess you are right
Thanks all for the input.



Feb 24, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


Mirek Elsner wrote:
Neither has especially beautiful bokeh (for my taste), but I prefer the 2.8.


Same, I don't think F4 producing any bokeh or very limited. F2.8 is slowest aperture which could produce it, again to my eyes and that is why I keep fast primes as 135L



Feb 24, 2013 at 01:41 PM
mirkoc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


As I understand, bokeh is not only about in blur disappeared background but the quality of the oof areas. There are plenty examples in this thread with F4 bokeh.


Feb 24, 2013 at 04:12 PM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


Several elements go into creating “pleasing” bokeh…aperture and design of the blades…does it keep a round aperture through its’ range…focal length to aperture…distance from subject to background (foreground), type of background, personal taste …to name a few….


Feb 24, 2013 at 04:53 PM
ssc45
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II bokeh and AF question


Jefferson wrote:
Several elements go into creating “pleasing” bokeh…aperture and design of the blades…does it keep a round aperture through its’ range…focal length to aperture…distance from subject to background (foreground), type of background, personal taste …to name a few….

This is very true. I own both lens and when I shoot the same item at 200 with F4 at f4 vs 200 2.8 at 2.8, the bokeh/background/OOF area is virtually identical.

When shooting at 70mm, I can see a difference--slight, but noticeable. I can not tell any difference in the AF tracking between these lens. The weight doesn't bother me, as my 1-4 is my most used lens. I bought the 2.8II because I needed the extra speed for my grandson who is now playing hockey.

As to my personal thoughts, my 70-200 are my least used lens in my type of shooting--prior to the hockey. I never sold my 7-200 F4is because it was such a sharp lens. However, after arguing with buddy's who claimed their 2.8II were sharper than the f4( I said BS) I have eaten my words. My 2.8ii is sharper at 2.8 than my f4 at f4 and throughout the range. It is very noticeable. Hence, I think I will be selling the F4--something I said I would never do. YMMV.

Cheers, Steve



Feb 24, 2013 at 05:10 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password