I have a question about two lens, 70-200 F4 IS vs 70-200 F2.8. This seems to have been brought up a couple times but I think my question is different. I am still new to photography and trying to understand some things. I think I want the IS lens because I do not have the steadiest hands in the world, don't want the extra weight, take most of the my pictures outside, and do not take pictures professionaly. From what I have read, is 'get the 2.8 if you need 2.8 and 4.0 if not'. The problem is I do not know what the 2.8 offers over the 4.0. I have a slight understanding of DOF which I believe 2.8 would be better and also better lower light pictures.
So I not asking which lens is better but maybe a quick synopsis of what 2.8 offers that 4.0 does not in reference to the lens. Or maybe the other way, what situations will the F4 lens 'struggle' compared to the 2.8
Well, moving down from f/2.8 to f/4 is cutting your available light in half.
In real world terms, that could mean the difference b/t being able to shoot at 1/60th and f/2.8 indoors under normal incandescent light which should freeze most standard action of people interacting, or 1/30th at f/4 and having everyone motion blurred.
For wedding photographers, sports shooters, or event shooters, this is the difference b/t "getting the shot" and not. Keep in mind this is w/o using flash.
Another consideration for many is the f/2.8 70-200's are over 5lbs each - that can be a LOT of weight for some people to lug around for any extended period of time. This is one reason why many people love the f/4 version. It has insanely good IQ for a zoom lens, and is quite light and portable. For many people here, it is a staple vacation/travel lens.
If you are shooting outdoors, with good, natural light, f/4 should be plenty.
If you don't feel that you understand the difference between f/2.8 and f/4, you might want to hold off on buying such an expensive lens. What sort of things do you usually shoot, and what lenses are you using? A little more info on what you currently have, and why you feel unsatisfied with your current kit, would help us to better answer your question.
Since most of your photos are outdoor, the 70-200 f/4 as stated has great image quality and is much cheaper. If outdoor during day, the IS does not help since you probably will have a fast shutter speed of at least 1/250 more than likely. The best bang for the buck is the f/4 non IS in my opinion. The buy/sell board here on fm usually has a few copies for sale. If you intend to shoot sports then the 2.8 is a great help, but IS does not help much there (in my opinion) since the shutter speed is high to stop action....now if you want to shoot wildlife and dawn/dusk the IS is awesome. MY 100-400 has IS and I only use it for wildlife shots in that situation (even though it is not close to being call a fast lens, just has a nice wide range with nice image quality for a zoom). Off my soap box. Good luck with whatever you decide...glass rarely loses much value..now bodies are another matter.
The choice between f/2.8 and f/4.0 affects (a) How thin a DOF you want (f/2.8 offers thinner DOF, i.e., fewer things will be in focus making it challenging to get the right AF spot), (b) Whether you need double the shutter speed to freeze motion or your camera shake (f/2.8 offers twice the shutter speed than f/4), (c) AF response (f/2.8 generally speaking will better assist camera autofocus since it allows twice the amount of light). Of course, these are generalizations, mainly valid when comparing f/2.8 and f/4 of the same lens. When comparing across different lens classes, some of these may not be true, i.e., Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8 will probably focus slower than Canon 24-105 L f/4 except in very rare circumstances due to the quality of their AF systems.
Canon's 70-200 f/4 IS is one of Canon's best lenses in my opinion. The new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is very nice too, but will cost more than twice as much. What do you get for another $1400? This....
1. Twice the light reaching the sensor for lower light photography. You may need this to keep the shutter speed up to avoid motion blur.
2. Thinner depth of field. If the subject is in sharp focus and the background is blurred, the subject jumps out and gives the photo a 3D look. Also, you can do some pretty creative things with a shallow DOF.
3. Better focusing. Because the camera will open up the aperture to the largest available aperture when it focuses, the wider the aperture, the more light the camera will get, and the faster and more accurate it will focus.
4. Ability to add a 1.4X or even 2.0X teleconverter. You will loose one stop of light with a 1.4X teleconverter. So if you start with a 70-200 f/4 lens and add a 1.4X TC, the lens will behave like a 98-280 f/5.6 which is a pretty slow lens. But if you add a 1.4X TC on a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, you will end up with a 98-280 f/4 lens.
5. A lot heavier and bigger lens.
Wow, thanks for all the information in such a short period of time. I think I have a good understanding. Now need help with creative ways to convince wife that "i need a new lens"
There's also another option: Primes. I had all 70-200 versions (save from the latest Mk II) and sold them all. I sold the f/4 versions because I didn't like the bokeh and slow AF in low light and I sold the f/2.8 versions because of size and weight. They just stayed at home most of the time. I now have 135/2 and 100/2.8 IS. I'll take the 135/2 if I'm sure I won't need macro capabilities or encounter low light situations and I'll take the 100/2.8 IS if I'm not. Other good options (cheaper too) are the 85/1.8 and 100/2 and even the 135/2.8, if you don't mind busy bokeh.
The f/4 IS lens gives you IS plus modern lens element coatings that help reduce flare and ghosting. The only downside is lack of f/2.8.
The f/2.8 non-IS lens gives you the option of using double the shutter speed compared with f/4, but no advantage if you're using the same apertures. At maximum aperture you get only 70% of the depth of field compared with f/4 but you can still shoot at f/4 if you want to. The other downsides are increased weight, no IS, and not so good lens element coatings.
On balance I would recommend the f/4 IS as being more useful more often.
f/2.8 lets two times the light to the sensor, that f/4 does (double).
f/4 only lets in half the light to the sensor that f/2.8 does.
Consequently, an f/2.8 lens will have a brighter image in the view finder than an f/4 lens.
You will get less depth of field at f/2.8 than at the same focal length as you do with f/4. Aperture isn't the only thing that controls depth of field though. Subject to background distance. Subject to camera distance. focal length of the lens, and again aperture.
dunderwood wrote:
If you don't feel that you understand the difference between f/2.8 and f/4, you might want to hold off on buying such an expensive lens.
Super__G wrote:
Wow, thanks for all the information in such a short period of time. I think I have a good understanding. Now need help with creative ways to convince wife that "i need a new lens"
Lance Couture wrote:
Another consideration for many is the f/2.8 70-200's are over 5lbs each - that can be a LOT of weight for some people to lug around for any extended period of time.
At this point, I would recommend you buy a new or used version of the ef-s 55-250mm f/4/5.6 IS. New one is like $235 USD, have seen them used on Craigs for as low as $150.
Use it and love it. If you ever take photos with it that don't turn out the way you want, and you can properly identify that it is a lens limitation, sell the lens and buy the EF 70-200 f/(whatever you decide you need based on what you now know)
You'll be able to sell your 55-250 later if you decide to buy something else, and won't be out much if anything.
big country wrote:
generally the f/4 will struggle in low light trying to shoot action shots.
Interesting way to put it. "Generally?" "Struggle?"
A more objective description might be that you get one additional stop of low light capability, most useful in situations in which subject motion makes the photograph marginal, by precisely one stop. There will be some situation in which you cannot get enough shutter speed with the f/4 lens and which you can with the f/2.8, but there will be more situations by far in which both will work or neither will work.
Instead of trying to hype the differences into something it isn't, the buyer should consider his/her own photography and photographic needs in light of the capabilities and costs (not all of them financial) of the various choices available.
If one works hand frequently in marginal light situations then the advantage of the extra stop coupled with IS may well be worth it. Certain types of event photography provide a great reason for f/2.8 and IS.
If one works handheld in relatively low light photographing active subjects a non-IS f/2.8 lens could be a good choice, especially if the extra cost for the IS lens is an issue. Sports photography might be one example.
If one works handheld in situations where bulk, weight, and cost are an issue but low light active subjects are not a major issue, the f/4 IS lens could easily be the best choice. A landscape photographer who sometimes wants to shoot off the tripod might find this the best lens.
If one always works from the tripod and doesn't need the slightly narrower DOF produced by the one-stop-larger f/2.8 aperture, wants the lower cost and smaller weight/bulk. the f/4 non-IS lens could be the best choice.
(I use the non-IS f/4 version and it is an excellent performer. If I were replacing it today, my current preferences would likely be the IS f/4 version.)
Regarding image quality I used to point out that there is no significant difference among the four Canon 70-200mm zooms - all are excellent, and the other differences are much more significant. However, from the reports it seems that the new f/2.8 IS II lens may provide some IQ advantages. But against the background of the excellent performance of the previous lenses, you really have to ask whether these improvements are significant for your photography and, therefore, worth the additional cost. The answer may or may not be yes.
Finally, after writing all of this... you wrote that you are "new to photography." Slow down. There is no single "best" answer to the "which lens" questions like this. It is almost entirely relative to your particular photographic approach and so forth. The problem is that you haven't had time to establish this yet. Before you can make intelligent decisions about things like this you need to build a body of experience so that you understand your own photographic needs more clearly.
I don't know precisely what you may mean by "new" to photography, but if you are really new to this stuff, I urge you to start with less expensive but good lenses. Shoot a lot. Learn a lot. Think about what you are trying to do and about where and how your gear may limit you. Gradually begin to develop an overall plan for your equipment that will help you achieve your goals. (A great place for many to start is with one of the "rebel" style cameras, such as the t2i, with the fine EFS 18-55mm IS kit lens, perhaps augmented by the EFS 55-250mm IS lens if you are certain that you need something longer at the beginning.)
