gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
I was surprised that you did not introduce one more factor to those affecting a decision between f/2.8 and f/4 L zooms: the nature of the photography you do.
I have a couple of the f/2.8 L zooms (24-70 and 70-200). They are very nice lenses. However, I also have the 70-200mm f/4L IS, and it real world performance terms I cannot see any meaningful difference between large prints shot with the two different 70-200mm lenses.
Because my main use of those lenses is for landscape and similar photography, the extra stop has little real photographic value. And for the same reason (landscape photography) the larger size/weight is, as you note, a real disadvantage when I'm schlepping that gear on my back. Heck, it is even a disadvantage when I'm packing it up to load it in my car.
If I were replacing lenses today, I would look for f/4 versions of the 16-35 (which is the EF lens I own), the 24-70,and the 70-200mm zooms. It isn't a matter of the cost. It is a matter of utility.
On the other hand, obviously, if the specific nature of my photography would benefit from having one more stop on such lenses, I'd look at this differently. (In fact, I got the two f/2.8 zooms when I started a three-year project photographing a particular subject that did benefit from the larger apertures.)
Finally, it can be hard to overcome that nagging suspicion that the f/2.8 zooms must be better than the f/2.8 zooms — after all, they are bigger (and cooler looking!) and they cost more. But if you step back from that and consider the f/4 zooms more dispassionately you'll find that their optical performance is on par with the larger aperture relatives and the f/4 lenses have some functional advantages if you don't really need f/2.8.
Dan
SSO-Images wrote:
In particular,
RF 70-200mm f/4L (to debut any day) vs. RF 70-200mm f/2.8L
RF 24-105mm f/4L vs. RF 24-70mm f/2.8L
If cost AND weight are not a factor, it's no brainer except for a bit of reach issue with the latter. However, cost AND weight are significantly different. Cost, I can manage better, but weight is more important as my aging (and aching) body requires lighter carry load. Here are the cost and weight differences:
RF 70-200mm f/4L = 1.5 lbs and $1,599
RF 70-200mm f/2.8L = 2.35 lbs and $2,699
RF 24-105mm f/4L = 1.54 lbs and $1,099
RF 24-70mm f/2.8L = 2.7 lbs and $2,299
On my R5, the first group gives me up to 7.5 stops of image stabilization. For the latter group, up to 8 stops of image stabilization. What this means is that IS pretty much eliminates low light shooting concerns and that leaves the advantage of f/2.8 to better bokeh.
Of course, in spite of 7.5 or 8 stops of IS that the R5/lens combo gives, f/2.8 definitely has the advantage both in low light shooting and bokeh. The question is whether what advantages there are, are worth the significant cost and weight differences. Such question was simpler to answer in the EF days. You need to shoot indoors and in low light venues, you cough up the money, hardly a need to question. With the RF future, however..... What are your take? Given the IS stops you can get using these lenses with the R5 (or R6), would you still cough up the extra $1K+ for the f/2.8 version? One thing for sure, the R5 (R6) and RF f/4 lenses are as perfect as one can have for travel photography....Show more →
|
