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.
Dan
Jul 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #8693392 « F2.8 vs F4 »
