Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

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

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?

  
 
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


I'm thinking about selling my 70-200 2.8 IS version I and getting a 70-200 f/4 IS instead. I like the 2.8 but it's heavy and I recently bought the 85 f1.8 and the 135 f2, so if I want low depth of field in portraits, I can use those lenses. The 70-200 would be good for landscapes etc. I don't want to spend the money for the 2.8 II, as I don't think my use would justify the expense.

Any advice from those with experience with both lenses?

Thanks



Nov 11, 2013 at 04:41 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


I have all of the lenses except the 70-200mm f/2.8, so I cannot offer an direct advice on it - though I may be able to say something about your strategy of using a couple of large aperture primes plus the f/4 zoom

This has worked well for me since my primarily uses for the zoom are landscape and similar work, though I have also used it at high ISO for low light indoor work, including a current project photographing musicians. The primes give even better background blur than the zoom since they open up a bit more, and I don't feel quite so constrained about giving up f/2.8 in the zoom when I have f/2 and f/1.8 in the primes.

Since you already have an IS version of the f/2.8 zoom, you are probably the person in the best position to make a judgment about how much you gain with f/2.8 over f/4 in your own work.

Good luck with your decision.

Dan



Nov 11, 2013 at 05:11 PM
aubsxc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


I have the 70-200/2.8 IS (original) and the 70-200/4.0L (non IS). The 2.8 IS stays home most of the time, except for the rare social events where I need the extra stop and IS. The f4.0 works beautifully as a landscape/still lens, is as sharp as its bigger brother, and is smaller and lighter. If I had to choose just one, I would keep the f4.0.

I haven't used the f4.0/L IS version but I have read it is just as good as the non IS version. The f2.8L II IS is outrageously priced and not worth the expense to me (I paid a lot less for the original version).

Edited on Nov 11, 2013 at 06:13 PM · View previous versions



Nov 11, 2013 at 05:40 PM
Dragonfire
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


200L 2.8 is a fantastic lens and would definitely be my choice.


Nov 11, 2013 at 06:04 PM
jasonpatrick
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


I've had all 4 of the 70-200's and the 85 1.8. All the 70-200's are excellent lenses, but the 2.8 versions are just big. Really big. If you need the 2.8, you make the sacrifices for it. Both primes you mentioned are "better" from an isolation standpoint than the 70-200 2.8 is, and the f/4 IS version was considered the sharpest zoom around before the II version of the 2.8. For landscapes, you don't need 2.8 and you certainly don't want to be hiking with one of those bazookas if you don't need to. All that being said, I think you have a good plan. I doubt you'll miss the bigger lens.


Nov 11, 2013 at 06:18 PM
cineski
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


The 70-200 f/4 IS is a fantastic lens. I had the 70-200 2.8L IS mark I and sold it because I just couldn't handle the weight at weddings anymore. I got along for a while with just the 85L for telephoto and eventually had to add the 70-200. The weight is fantastic, very sharp wide open, highly recommended. Keeping my 85L for low depth of field but shooting at f/4 on the 70-200 is no slouch.


Nov 11, 2013 at 06:25 PM
Richard Nye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


The IQ of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is just a slight tad better than the 70-200 f/4 IS - a smidgeon sharper and maybe a little more contrast. But the 70-200 f/4 IS is a GREAT lens that is very portable, sharp, has a very hand IS, and is much nicer for travel than the 2.8 versions which are heavy and large.


Nov 11, 2013 at 07:15 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


Trade/Sell it? Only if you never, ever feel the need for a faster lens and regularly shoot at f4, 5.6, or 8 now.

Are you often shooting wide open (f2.8)? And are you liking that?

Seeing you have the 85 and 135 - what about this?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732106-USA/Canon_4426B002_EF_70_300mm_f_4_5_6L_IS.html



Nov 11, 2013 at 07:33 PM
Evan Baines
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


I made exactly the switch you describe, and do not regret it. As I do more outdoor photography lately, the weight and size is a real issue. Above the tree line, ounces matter. I use my 85L when I need to obliterate a background.




Nov 11, 2013 at 08:21 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


jasonpatrick wrote:
I've had all 4 of the 70-200's...


I've owned four of the five EF 70-200mm lenses.

I currently own the 70-200/2.8L IS II and 70-200/4L IS. I generally prefer to use the faster f/2.8 lens, but the f/4 is a great lens, too. The one-stop difference in shutter speeds between the two isn't what it used to be, if you're using a newer camera with super high ISO capability (1DX, 5DIII, or 6D). IOW, I select the f/2.8 when I expect to shoot at f/2.8, and/or use Extenders.



Nov 11, 2013 at 08:28 PM
docsmiles17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


By getting the f/4 version, it appears you will be carrying around 3 lenses correct? the 70-200, 85, and 135….if you have the f/2.8 you likely will only carry 1 lens.

The 70-200 f/2/8 is such a versatile lens….hard to part with (for me)
Good luck with your decision



Nov 14, 2013 at 12:53 AM
docsmiles17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


jcolwell wrote:
I've owned four of the five EF 70-200mm lenses.

...The one-stop difference in shutter speeds between the two isn't what it used to be,

You mean f-stops instead of shutter speeds, right?



Nov 14, 2013 at 12:57 AM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


Had the 2.8 IS v.1 and then added the f/4 IS. Barely used the 2.8 thereafter. I shoot a lot of stuff where one would otherwise think 2.8 is a necessity, but as already mentioned, with the newer cameras, the stop difference is usually not enough of a problem that raising the ISO accordingly cannot handle. And like you, I also have faster primes in the 50/85/135 ranges to fall back on. While the 2.8 zoom can cover all that, it's huge and heavy to carry around all day. It's also not as sharp (the v.2 is much better). Certainly lugging a few primes plus the f/4 zoom is also heavy... the benefit being each offers unique capabilities unavailable in a single zoom lens.

I second Paul's suggestion to also consider the 70-300L if you're shooting primarily landscapes. In tests I've seen, it outperformed the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4x TC combo, and pretty much matched it at non-TC focal lengths.



Nov 14, 2013 at 02:07 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


jcolwell wrote:
I've owned four of the five EF 70-200mm lenses.

...The one-stop difference in shutter speeds between the two isn't what it used to be,

docsmiles17 wrote:
You mean f-stops instead of shutter speeds, right?

Nope. I mean shutter speeds, at maximum aperture. When you're limited to "lower" ISO values, then the difference in maximum shutter speed between an f/4 lens at f/4, and an f/2.8 lens at f/2.8 can be very important. For example, if you're shooting night sports on a field with so-so lighting, the typical amount of light is about 7 EV (exposure values). At ISO 100 and f/4, the shutter speed for 'correct exposure' is about 1/8 sec. - way too slow for sports. So, you crank up the ISO. If you take it to ISO 1600, then you're getting a shutter speed of 1/250 sec, with the f/4 lens (at f/4). That's kind of marginal for field sports. I like to keep it above 1/400 sec. If you're shooting in the same conditions (EV 7, ISO 1600) with a f/2.8 lens at f/2.8, the shutter speed is one stop faster, and is now at 1/500 sec. That's in the sweet spot.

Now that I have a1DX, I can crank up the ISO to 12,800 and get shutter speed of 1/1000 sec on a f/4 lens, at 7 EV. The one-stop difference in (maximum) shutter speeds between a f/2.8 lens and a f/4 lens ain't what it used to be.

Of course, TANSTAAFL. In low light, the f/2.8 lens will generally focus faster and sometimes more accurately than the f/4 lens. The differences will depend on the specific camera and lens in question.

Until recently, I used 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L lenses for shooting events in low light, in order to get decent shutter speeds. Then I got a 1DX and sold these two f/1.4L lenses. It turns out that I really never used the super-wide apertures on wide and very wide angle lenses for DOF control - only for shutter speed. I figure my 1DX is as good at ISO 12,800 as was my 1DsIII at 3200; that's a three-stop advantage. The difference between my 24-70/2.8L II and 24/1.4L ~ 35/1.4L is two stops. So, I have a one stop advantage (in shutter speed) by using f/2.8 on my 1DX, as opposed to f/1.4 on my old 1DsIII. OTOH, I'm keeping my 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II, because I often use them wide open for DOF effects.


Edited on Nov 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM · View previous versions



Nov 14, 2013 at 07:17 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


...

Edited on Nov 23, 2013 at 10:27 AM · View previous versions



Nov 14, 2013 at 07:18 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


...

Edited on Nov 23, 2013 at 10:27 AM · View previous versions



Nov 14, 2013 at 07:20 AM
Snead
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


About 10 years ago Dell.com had the 70-200L F/2.8 IS priced the same as the non IS. There was a lot of discussions about that on DPR and I ordered one. I was back and forth with Dell for several months and they finally delivered the lens. I found it was just too heavy and bulky for me and sold it.

A month ago I bought a 70-200L f/4 IS refurb on sale from Canon and it's not as heavy or bulky and is very very sharp even wide open. With the big improvements in High ISO performance I don't see the need for the extra expense and weight of the f/2.8.



Nov 16, 2013 at 09:11 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?


docsmiles17 wrote:
By getting the f/4 version, it appears you will be carrying around 3 lenses correct? the 70-200, 85, and 135….if you have the f/2.8 you likely will only carry 1 lens.


There are upsides and downsides to virtually all lens choices. You have correctly identified one downside of the f/4 zoom plus large aperture primes approach as being the need to carry more lenses and to use primes in some cases.

However, as expected, the trade-offs include upsides as well. If you want larger maximum apertures you can get them from a few large aperture primes that might give you f/1.4 or f/1.8 max rather than just f/2.8.

This is precisely the reason that each photographer has to think this stuff through for himself or herself. The right answer for photographer A might be the wrong answer for photographer B. In this case, the OP already has the experience shooting almost all of this gear and can probably extrapolate from experience what it would mean to not have f/4 on the zoom in exchange for smaller size and diminished bulk/weight.

Take care,

Dan



Nov 16, 2013 at 11:23 AM
jasonpatrick
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS I with f/4 IS?



jcolwell wrote:
I've owned four of the five EF 70-200mm lenses.

I currently own the 70-200/2.8L IS II and 70-200/4L IS. I generally prefer to use the faster f/2.8 lens, but the f/4 is a great lens, too. The one-stop difference in shutter speeds between the two isn't what it used to be, if you're using a newer camera with super high ISO capability (1DX, 5DIII, or 6D). IOW, I select the f/2.8 when I expect to shoot at f/2.8, and/or use Extenders.


Haha. My bad! I've had 4 out of the 5 too. I never had the 70-200mm 2.8 IS version 1.



Nov 16, 2013 at 02:20 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.