gdanmitchell Online Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Two Part Question...Frequent Focal Length Shooting & Considering Timelapse | |
The question of whether to get the f/2.8 or the f/4 version of the 70-200mm lens is a common one, and for a number of reasons. Almost every photographer can imagine at least a scenario or two where an extra stop might be useful, and it is easy to assume that the biggest and most expensive lens must be "better." The lower cost and smaller/lighter design of the f/4 are appealing.
Fortunately, both are really excellent lenses and either one can produce best of class photographic results. While some will point out that you may be able to measure ever so slightly better optical performance in the f/2.8 on the test bench, when the f/4 came out many reviewers remarked that it was the highest resolution lens of its toe that they had ever seen. Basically, the image quality question is superfluous.
So, it comes down to, mostly:
- cost, both for the individual lens and in terms of the subsequent effect on your other purchases
- size and weight
- how much you push the very edge of the low light envelope (do you need that extra stop?)
- are you going to want to put a 2x extender on the lens
- how either lens fits with the rest of the lenses you own or will own
I currently use both the f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS versions of the lens. (It is a long story how this came to be and I won't bore you.) I'm using the f/2.8 for a special project that has me taking photographs of classical musicians in low light in their work environment over a three-year period, and here the extra stop has some value since I'm almost always shooting in truly marginal light at ISO 3200, and often with a 1.4x extender. But the lens is a beast - a very big and heavy thing. I've also used the f/4 in the same circumstances, and I have to say that it is amazing what you can do in low light with a f/4 IS-equipped lens on modern cameras that work as such high ISO values.
For other work such as landscape photography and similar, I would rate the f/4 lens as a better option, considering all factors. Here there is little or no advantage to the f/2.8 aperture, and the smaller size and lighter weight can be quite important. There is no sacrifice in image quality. In fact, just a couple of months ago I spend better than a week doing back-country landscape photography in the southern Sierra Nevada... and I took the f/4 lens. I would not have even considered schlepping the f/2.8 along for that.
(Keep repeating: "both lenses are optically excellent. both lenses are optically excellent. both...")
Regarding your question about the Sigma lens and time lapse, are you asking if you need a lens with greater wide angle coverage? I can't see why the lens would not be "up to the task" in other ways - if it works for "normal" photography it should work for time lapse.
Dan
Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 01:01 PM · View previous versions
|