p.2 #1 · 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.
p.2 #3 · 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.
p.2 #4 · 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
p.2 #5 · 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....
p.2 #6 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
mdude85 wrote:
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. ...The subject is just so much more isolated from the background that it is perfect for sports.
Absolutely!
I've posted this before, but I'll post it again.
I used to own the fabulous 80-200 f/2.8. But I couldn't hand hold the darn thing steady! So, I sold it and bought a 70-200 f/4. Excellent lens...but for MY purposes, it didn't provide enough background blur. So, I recently picked up the monstrously heavy 70-200 f/2.8 IS...and I'm soooo glad I did.
Look at the difference between f/4 below and the f/2.8 below that: f/4 f/2.8
p.2 #7 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
I got my IS on Canon triple rebate last year. I could make a little money selling it now, a year later. I believe Canon offers rebates twice every year.
BTW the IS version has the optimized, faster, auto focus, and wheather sealing over the non-IS f/2.8 and f/4.
Many complain about the weight but as an amatuer who doesn't have to schlepp it around day-in/day-out, I actually like the heft of it. It has a great, robust, industrial precision feel about it.
The auto focus is the fastest of all my lenses, including some very fast primes.
p.2 #8 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
mdude85 wrote:
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.
I agree with the fact that faster lenses seem to have better subject isolation (background blur). However, a lot of new photographers forget that placing your subject in an area with a nice background also contributes to the background blur that a lot of portraiture photogs go for..........(candids are a different thing!). I love using my 300F4 L because even at F4, the long focal length really isolates a subject well from its background.
p.2 #9 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
melissa1959 wrote:
Absolutely!
I've posted this before, but I'll post it again.
I used to own the fabulous 80-200 f/2.8. But I couldn't hand hold the darn thing steady! So, I sold it and bought a 70-200 f/4. Excellent lens...but for MY purposes, it didn't provide enough background blur. So, I recently picked up the monstrously heavy 70-200 f/2.8 IS...and I'm soooo glad I did.
Look at the difference between f/4 below and the f/2.8 below that: f/4 f/2.8
Melissa: Were you at equal distances from your subject and how far was the background? This makes more difference than simply using a faster aperature. Here's a shot with a 300F4 L..........background was further away and resulted in a smooth background blur......
p.2 #11 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
If I'm shooting a wedding or other event indoors, f/2.8 is generally not fast enough anyway, and IS is useless for stopping anything but hand motion. Of course, if that's what you're going for, then the IS is indispensable. I generally reserve faster primes for such shooting.
I moved from the f/4 up to the f/2.8 IS back to the f/4. I think it was primarily because I just don't shoot much in that range, and it's better to have a $580 lens that you rarely use than a $1600 lens that you rarely use. The IS lens is also pretty heavy and conspicuous, which makes it great for event work but terrible for discrete photography.
I much prefer working with fast primes when I need the speed.
Arka C.
Jul 24, 2005 at 11:28 AM
The Big Bad Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #12 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
I think alot of you would be really surprised at just how many pro's actually shoot stopped down a bit. When I shoot football etc with my 400 2.8 I usually shot it at f4 and most other pro's do as well. f2.8 is really only for when you need the extra speed for night games.
As a thread from the other day showed, the difference in the blur of the background between f2.8 and f4 is very very minor. Theres a bigger difference in the quality and smoothness between a lens like the 135 f2 at any given apeture than there is between f2.8 and f4 on the same lens
Background blur more largely depends on the subject to background and camera to subject distances than anything else. You can achieve great blured backgrounds even at f5.6 if your smart about yoru composition.
Ive shot sports where even a 135 f2 or 200 1.8 didnt blur the background out such as youth baseball jsut becuase the kids are so close to the backdrop. ON the other hand, in a pro park, the dugout is far enough way that it blurs out pretty well with a 300 f4.
the bottom line is that you should buy a lens because it meets your needs, not someone elses though. Everyone has valid reasons for owning what they do but dont get wrapped up too much in thinking that just because a lens didnt work for them that it wont work for you.
As I said, there were SO many times where I had the 70-200 2.8 IS with me that I wished I instead had a 70-200 f4, or the 135 f2 instead. I now own both those lens and can pick the best option for my day. They are all awesome lenses though but each has a time and place.
p.2 #13 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
The bottom line is it's a good feeling to be prepared and not be stuck flat footed wishing you had the right lens, when, early morning or dusk, a bear or deer appears out of the woods! And this holds true shooting people during those times and when they are in shade. Sometimes the shot won't wait for lens changes or ISO adjustments.
It's very hard to handhold shooting at 200mm at only 1/60th of a second. At least it is w/o IS!
p.2 #14 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
Simply put, it's not an upgrade when you need it for what you're doing
It's close to impossible for me to shoot those dang dance shoots with anything slower than f2. The entire place is balck, expect for stage lighting, which many times is just one or two lights that are located from off the sides of the stage.
I want a f1 aperture lens with a DOF that acts like a 2 - 2.8 =)
oh well, cant defy physics with just plain glass, heheh
chin f.
oh yea, I use 99% primes, although I do try to use my magic drainpipe when i can
p.2 #15 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
My 70-200 f4 is an amazing lens. I love the sharpness, and it is a wondeful balance of weight / capability.
I have used the 2.8 IS - I rented it for a weekend. A truly amazing lens. It has everything the f4 has and so much more. Sure it's heavier, and much more bulky. But it's a very, very effective and versatile lens. If I had the cash I would get it.
p.2 #16 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
[Quote] 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) ?
No one really answered the question. I'm not trying to be obnoxious but I too would like to know the answer, because it sounds reasonable to me.
p.2 #17 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
Keiffer wrote:
[Quote] 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) ?
No one really answered the question. I'm not trying to be obnoxious but I too would like to know the answer, because it sounds reasonable to me.
Of COURSE you can "up the ISO". But you always pay a penalty for that (unless you're going from ISO 50 to ISO 100). And that jump from ISO 1600 to 3200 is a pretty nasty one.
You can also increase your shutter speed from 1/500 to 1/250.
But when you find yourself at ISO 3200, f/4, 1/250 . . . you'll really start wishing you had f/2.8 . . . if not f/1.8
p.2 #19 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
In some situation, like indoor events or sports, there is no such thing as a lens being too fast. Plus, don't even under-etimate the importance of having IS, especially when you have no more aperture to open up, no more ISO to increase and you still have to shoot at 200 mm and 1/60 sec.
The extra one stop and IS make the 70-200IS the ideal lens for all situations, while the little brother is usually only good for outdoor usage where there is more light.
p.2 #20 · F2.8 vs. F4? Is it really THAT signifigant?
I have both the F4 & F2.8IS version & everyone is right in their own way. Both are very sharp indeed with exotic glass elements.
The main thing for YOU is that, do you really need that extra stop as the penalty is cost, weight & the IS is even more more expensive.
Hikers when shooting with good light will bless the F4 as it is light but low light photography requires a larger aperture & even f2.8 is not bright enough !
Weight up YOUR pros & con & decide which lens suits your suiting style.
For me, the F2.8 suits my style thus I have just listed my F4 but with some regrets but may decide to keep it.
