F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 5 end

Archive 2005 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

Pell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

Hello All,

As I am sure most of you have gone through, I am torn about buying the 2.8, or 2.8 IS model of the 70-200 .

I read mixed reviews on its performance difference between the F4 version.

I do realize, F 2.8 is a full stop faster than F4, however, can't that be compensated by upping the iso (for example, 2.8 @ iso 100 compared to 4 @ iso 200) ?

the reason I am posting, is for advice from those who have L fever, and to see if the upgrade is worth it?

The things I like to shoot the most, are people, places and things. Outside, I can not see any real advantage (as I use a monopod with my F4) , but inside, other than being able to be hand held better (with is) , i cant see a major advantage that upping the iso cant handle.

The thing that brought this all on, was I was looking into buying a 300 F4 IS, and extender. Then thought perhaps to sell my 70-200 F4 and buty a 70-200 IS + extender (which would cost roughly the same with my F4 sold) . I know I would lose 25% range or so, but I am trying to get the best bang for my buck.

Hopefully my rant isnt to confusing. If you have any advice, please let me know. Especially if the switch from an F4 to a 2.8 was realyl worth the huge cost difference.

Thanks again.

Jul 24, 2005 at 04:05 AM

ent2b
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

well, i have the F4 and while i love it's size, optical quality, and its color recreation, i would love to have a faster lens too giving less DOF...

i've seen really great shots with both though. the other option to also consider would perhaps be the sigma 2.8 version which i believe is cheaper than a used 2.8 non-IS version. however, i have personally not used that lens, or any of the 2.8s for that matter.

this is a tough choice. for me it was easy b/c my pocketbook wouldn't allow anything but the f4. good luck.

Jul 24, 2005 at 04:14 AM

trijicon
Offline
Account Locked

p.1 #3 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

HUGE difference! I always shooting between f2.8 and f3.5. Mostly for wedding work. Even with the 20D's great iso capabilities I won't push the ISO past 800. ISO 1600 still needs PS work. The extra stop give you so much, nice DOF, faster shutter with normal ISO setting, also important for a tele lense. I have the IS version and I just shot a dark wedding in the church at 1/30th shutters speeds. Plus, when you upgrade your body, the faster glass improves AF dramatically. If I you can swing it, I'd save and get the IS version, in the long run it will save you money buying and selling and buying and selling.

Just my two cents

Jul 24, 2005 at 04:22 AM

DavidP
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

Depends on your light levels. Sometimes even f/2.8 seems too slow. I mean, when you're already at ISO 3200, 1/60, and f/1.4 . . . even f/1.4 can seem too slow then.

Also, f/2.8 (or faster) kicks the AF into a more precise mode on the 20D and 1-series bodies.

Jul 24, 2005 at 04:40 AM

Pham Minh Son
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

The F4 is a very nice lens but speed is everything when even one stop different is significant. The F2.8 will give you tremendous flexibility. Between IS and Non IS both are great lens just depend on your pocket.

-Son

Jul 24, 2005 at 04:47 AM

The Big Bad
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.1 #6 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

I like having both

for hiking and applicatons such as landscapes where Im stopping down and using a tripod anyways, the f4 is great due to its low weight

for sports and other things where I need to get a minimum shutter speed, the f2.8 is really great to have, and with IS its very useful for places where I cant or dont want to have a tripod

sometimes the difference means getting shots and other times its just carrying a bigger heavier lens around

Jul 24, 2005 at 04:53 AM

choiboyogg
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

huge difference.

Jul 24, 2005 at 05:00 AM

Phil Bonner
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

Outdoors there are more critters out and about in the early morning/evening when the light is low and IS can play a key role. Here's 2 sample shots from my last camping trip in the Sierras. Both are at the maximum range of the 70-200, one with the 1.4TC. Although they are not museum quality, they are just fine for the family vacation album.

It is very questionable if they would have still been keepers w/o the IS to steady the lens. Likewise, when you encounter these animals ther is usually no time to switch ISO settings.

My day hiking lenses are the 17-40 with the 135 and 1.4TC or the 70-200 IS w/1.4TC. I have a padded belt holster for the off-camera lens.

f/4 at 280mm (1.4TC) 1/125th ss ISO 400

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

f/2.8 at 200mm 1/80th ss ISO 200

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

We saw 5 different bears on this trip!

Edited by Phil Bonner on Jul 23, 2005 at 09:49 PM GMT

Jul 24, 2005 at 05:02 AM

EB-1
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

The Big Bad wrote:
I like having both

for hiking and applicatons such as landscapes where Im stopping down and using a tripod anyways, the f4 is great due to its low weight.

That is what I was thinking. And the 70-200/4 should be at least as sharp at f/10 and probably a bit contrastier.

EB

Jul 24, 2005 at 05:03 AM

20Dshooter
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

It is double the speed of f/4. The same difference as between f/16 and f/22.

Jul 24, 2005 at 05:33 AM

zach_nagle
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

My feeling is that anyone who can afford the 2.8 shouldn't think twice about it. The difference between 4 and 2.8 may not seem big now but it will once you start shoot and realize that some of your shots could have great rather than good if you had the extra stop.

Jul 24, 2005 at 05:35 AM

Ben Horne
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

I just got back from shooting an Arena football game. My exposure was as follows: 1/500s @ f/2.8 ISO 3200. I would have been out of luck with f/4 glass. Yes, it DOES make a difference.

Jul 24, 2005 at 05:55 AM

Volleybob
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

2.8 has option of shallower DOF.

Jul 24, 2005 at 05:56 AM

The Big Bad
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.1 #14 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

as others have shown, depending on what you do it makes a huge difference or it doesnt.

to say if you have the money you should get the 2.8 automatically though I dont think makes sense.

why haul 2.8 glass around on the hiking trail if you only shoot landscapes and work from a tripod ?

why spend money so you can shoot sports in low light if you have no intrest in doing that nor is it your job ?

For me personally, I would only own the f4 version if I only took photos for enjoyment. I like landscape/city shooting and dont need the speed nor do I enjoy the weight. For my shallow DOF work I enjoy using primes like the 135 f2 or 85 1.2

however I also shoot for a living and im chief photography/photo editor for a weekly publication so I do need to be able to go shoot events, sports etc and as such I own the f2.8. The f4 simply would not get the job done for me.

Jul 24, 2005 at 06:08 AM

20Dshooter
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

BTW, Sigma have a 2.8 lens for a little more than the Canon f/4L. Everyone who uses it claims that it is as good as the Ls. Look at the reviews.

Jul 24, 2005 at 06:22 AM

Phil Bonner
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

If I had to schlepp photo gear around all day, day-in/day-out for a living, I'd probably be adverse to carrying it around on my vacation too!

On a day hike, the 70-200IS on-camera or in a belt holster is no problem for me. Sure beats the hell out of carrying a tripod instead. I'll tell you that IS and extra stop have come on real handy for me!

Jul 24, 2005 at 06:25 AM

tmronin
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

huge difference.

f4 just doesn't work for a lot of my type of shooting - concerts, events, etc.

won't even consider the f4...i am borrowing a sigma 70-200/2.8 while saving for the IS model and it does rock.

but ymmv.

Jul 24, 2005 at 06:47 AM

PlaneGuy
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

DavidP wrote:
... I mean, when you're already at ISO 3200, 1/60, and f/1.4 . . . even f/1.4 can seem too slow then.

David,

what are you shooting in those conditions. I've been known to shoot night sport with my ancient D30 - ISO 1600 (its max), f2.8 1/200, and all that is about 1 stop underexposed (oh, how I want a 200/1.8). So you are shooting in 3 2/3 stops darker light - what are you using as light, a single match? Care to post some samples?

Jul 24, 2005 at 07:20 AM

astrolucida
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

EB-1 wrote:
That is what I was thinking. And the 70-200/4 should be at least as sharp at f/10 and probably a bit contrastier.

According to my measurements with Imatest, 70-200f4L is slightly sharper at 135mm than 70-200f2.8L IS, at all apertures (from f4, that is

but less sharp at 200mm. Though, the difference in both cases is so small that it is within measurement error. The f4 version has slightly less CA, but it vignettes at f4 which f2.8 does not do (naturally it does vignette at f2.8).

My conclusion is that sharpness is not a selection criteria between f2.8 and f4 versions, but lens speed is. And IS, which is a boost of three apertures in handheld static situations. So the total difference, in certain applications, is four aperture stops! That was large enough for me, but might not be that important to others.

Jul 24, 2005 at 07:25 AM

PlaneGuy
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

Okay, now for a reply to the OP. I started with the f4 and moved to the f2.8 non-IS. As you see from my previous post, sometimes it is just not fast enough. Sometimes there is no more ISO to be upped, sometimes the background does need to be blurred that little bit extra.

That being said though, it is a substantially heavier lens (not that it bothers me, like it does others). I chose to not go the IS route, as 1) money was an issue 2) I mainly use it for sports with a monopod 3) my main problem is motion blur, not camera shake.

For portraiture, candid snaps, the 2.8 foes give a lovely low DoF too.

Jul 24, 2005 at 07:32 AM

Pham Minh Son
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #21 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

Ben Horne wrote, "I just got back from shooting an Arena football game. My exposure was as follows: 1/500s @ f/2.8 ISO 3200. I would have been out of luck with f/4 glass. Yes, it DOES make a difference."

As I mentioned in my previous post, I absolutely agree with Ben on the ability that the F2.8 bring to the table when need it. When you buy a long lens like this one of the nice thing about it is you probably want to shoot action and this is where the F2.8 counts otherwise the F4 is a great sharp lens.

-Son

Jul 24, 2005 at 01:07 PM

DavidP
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

PlaneGuy wrote:
what are you shooting in those conditions.

Small clubs. One in particular, for those conditions.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

www.neonlightsimaging.com/TinPanSouth2004 (check out the shots from Douglas Corner Cafe)

Jul 24, 2005 at 01:33 PM

mdude85
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #23 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

There really is a big difference, but it's mostly with respect to background blur. I just find the blurred OOF area off a 2.8 lens simply more silky and less defined than that of an f4 lens, despite the company that makes it. Truth is that an f/4 lens can handle many photographic situations, including lowlight stadiums and aquatic centers. (If you're willing to sacrifice low ISO). f2.8 handles them better, but I think that regular light is where f2.8 shines. The subject is just so much more isolated from the background that it is perfect for sports.

Jul 24, 2005 at 01:53 PM

Mr645
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #24 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

I decided that when F4 is not enough, such as indoor shooting, then F2.8 is mostly not enough either. So for the most part I use the slower zooms and end up shooting at F5.6 or F8 and when I need speed, I got to the F1.8 or faster primes

Jul 24, 2005 at 02:04 PM

callaway
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #25 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?

I've owned them all.... The F4 was a great light-weight lens and was one of my first "L lenses"....kinda like that first car you had?

Then my son started playing t-ball and dad wanted some pictures. At F4 it was difficult to get a shot of my son up to plate without someone's crotch behind him in the stands. In the hot summer months, I could probably have been arrested for voyeurism. I sold the F4 and bought the 2.8 non-IS. A soccer season later, I sold it for the 2.8 IS in an attempt to get sharper focus - which it did.

As you can see there are specific reasons for puchasing the F4 or 2.8 IS/non-IS. Many times you just grow up through the ranks and the nice thing is the "L" glass holds its' value well and trading up the ladder works well... If you know you want to get to the 2.8 IS but don't have the money, buy a used F4 and you won't loose more than $50 over a year and perhaps even make money if you get a good enough deal. The only drawback I see at this moment, would be the rebates Canon has had, and the Dell deal lately which makes me wonder if Canon has a new version of the 70-200 in the works. We are hearing a lot about a new DSLR but with the rebates, it appears we may be seeing some new glass as well....

Jul 24, 2005 at 03:43 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end