Canon 70-200 f2.8 -v- f4

Gilly B

Gilly B

Messages
1,264
Name
Gillian
Edit My Images
Yes
Now I know a lot of you guys have the above and I have been reading up on the lens. Am I correct in thinking it would make the perfect focal length to add to my Wedding lenses?

If yes to above, I naturally though the 2.8 would be better because it was faster etc. However, I have just read a review of the both lenses and the f4 came out much sharper at 200mm.

Can you peeps confirm or deny this statement. I prep'd hubby at lunchtime, that I NEED a long fast lens for my next wedding, and after explaining why, he said okay. OKAY - no fight, grovelling, making up etc. ....that was easy I thought. .....until he said can it wait until Christmas :crying: . Well it not that long. So I have to get the right one. Also, what about the equivalent in Sigma? any good? Thanks
 
Instead of thinking of the f/2.8 as softer it's better to think of the f/4 as that much sharper. Both are great lenses, the f/2.8 would be the better choice for weddings - the extra stop would just be so useful in low light regardless of IS.

You can compare both lenses here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...IComp=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=9&FLI=4&API=2

Move the mouse on the chart for the f/2.8 and off again for the f/4
 
I'll second what pxl8 said, both lenses are superb, but the f4 is approx give or take 1/2 the price of the f2.8 in IS and non IS versions. The decision as they say is yours.
 
I have an older version of the Sigma F2.8 (non DG version). It is nice, and I do use it quite a bit, but I would always pick the 135 F2 over it when I can (especially in low light). I am sorry... I don't think my comments are going to help you at all. :(
 
My favourite lenses :D Up until a month ago I had all three in the bag, now I've only got the sigma and the canon F2.8 :|

Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS - weather sealed, sharp, quick, heavy white, expensive.

Canon 70-200 F4 - Light, white, sharper than a sharp thing, absolutely lovely lens, bargain

Sigma 70-200 F2.8 - sharper than the canon F2.8 IS and the colours are more neutral (personally I like it) , not weather sealed, good cost compromise between the two canon models.

Don't forget the F4IS as well though. It's supposed to be sharper than any of them, has weather sealing, fairly light, decent price point, looks like a bargain.

Overall, I'd have to go with one of the 2.8's though, the times when it's dark I need the extra stop more than IS. If the Sigma had weather proofing that would be my choice, as it is it's got to be the Canon.

Edit: you could also look at the canon F2.8 Non IS. Import only though as far as I know.
 
FranchiseJuan said:
Some call the Bokeh of the Sigma a little harsh.
Click to expand...
Heard that too, I wouldn't agree with it though ;)

ML1W2928.jpg
 
I have the f/4 and I do like it but I have ordered the f/2.8 from kerso and should have it by next week.
 
I have the f4 version and have used the f2.8 IS on lots of occasions too. I've thought many times that I should swap to the faster version as I do use it quite a bit and clients deserve the best I can give them.

The trouble is that most of the time you really cant see any difference and when you can, it's in favour of the f4. So in my bag it stays. :)
 
I've just looked at the web site posted above with examples, the f4 version walks all over the 2.8. Unless the 2.8 was a dodgy copy, I may consider selling mine in favour of the f4. I've always though the f2.8 was softer than it should be. Interesting . . .
 
The 70-200 F4 lens is sharper at F4 than the 70-200 F2.8 is at F2.8 but stop it down to F4 and they are the same. But you get F2.8 for low light, i use it all the time for Weddings and i would be stuck without it.

This is with the 70-200 F2.8 at F2.8.
Plus i have filterd this with noise ninja 2 so it looks a lot softer.
This is a ISO 1600 shot.

MAH10007.jpg
 
OMG - thanks guys, those posts make for some interesting reading and contemplating. I will go and look at the comparison link now. :shrug:
 
You cant compare the test from the link, you dont know under what conditions the test was done.
 
I was in the f4 v f2.8 camp a while back, and took the plunge and got the 2.8.
My thinking was I don't want to get the f4 and be wondering all the time if I should have got the 2.8, ( buy right & buy once)

But really you should have got this last month as you have missed the £130 cash back on the 2.8
 
Gilly B said:
Am I correct in thinking it would make the perfect focal length to add to my Wedding lenses?

If yes to above, I naturally thought the 2.8 would be better because it was faster etc.
Click to expand...

You have answered your own question correctly..;)


Gilly B said:
However, I have just read a review of the both lenses and the f4 came out much sharper at 200mm.
Click to expand...

Its all down to the testers own opinion which we are all entitled to..:)

If we all liked the same cars on the road we would be all driving the same.

Everyone has their own opinion..;)

I owned the F.4 not long ago, I now own the F/2.8IS and will not tell a lie, I cannot see the PQ difference between the two.:| They are both extremely sharp

For obvious reasons the 2.8 will work better in low light situations which is a must at your weddings..:)

Don't make the mistake of going for the cheaper option thinking it will do.

Pay the extra and get the lens that WILL do the job first.;)

It makes sense.
 
At the same time f2.8 at 200mm gives you little or no depth of field so fucusing would be critical.
 
busterboy said:
You have answered your own question correctly..;)




Its all down to the testers own opinion which we are all entitled to..:)

If we all liked the same cars on the road we would be all driving the same.

Everyone has their own opinion..;)

I owned the F.4 not long ago, I now own the F/2.8IS and will not tell a lie, I cannot see the PQ difference between the two.:| They are both extremely sharp

For obvious reasons the 2.8 will work better in low light situations which is a must at your weddings..:)

Don't make the mistake of going for the cheaper option thinking it will do.

Pay the extra and get the lens that WILL do the job first.;)

It makes sense.
Click to expand...

Good point BB. I suppose you get what you pay for, and not only that, my biggest gripe is not having the extra stop when doing weddings in dark churches when flash is not allowed.

When I have the pennies in the bank to go and buy the lens, I think I will go to a high street store and play with the both and then maybe buy the one I decide from someone like Kerso. :)
 
FranchiseJuan said:
I also like to add that while the F4 might be sharper at F4 then the F2.8 are F4, it is infinitely worse then the F2.8 at F2.8 as it can't get there. A softer picture of something is better then no picture at all.
Click to expand...

True :)
 
Don't make the mistake of going for the cheaper option thinking it will do.

Pay the extra and get the lens that WILL do the job first
Click to expand...

I agree that when you need to spend some money to make sure you have the right tools, it's important to do so. However, the first and most important rule to learn when going into shooting for a living, is spend what you really need to and no more!

Is the extra stop an absolute requirement for you? Will one nudge on the ISO be just as good? Would a monopod be a better solution?

It's interesting that this topic has come up with this particular lens. I've spent tens of thousands on Leaf, Mamiya, Cambo, Schneider and Canon equipment to make sure I have the right tools for the jobs I do but the one lens that I've never "upgraded" as I just cant justify it, is the 70-200 f4. It's great and it does as good a job as is possible for me. It might or might or might not for you but don't spend the extra just because of the numbers.
 
dazzajl said:
I agree that when you need to spend some money to make sure you have the right tools, it's important to do so. However, the first and most important rule to learn when going into shooting for a living, is spend what you really need to and no more!

Is the extra stop an absolute requirement for you? Will one nudge on the ISO be just as good? Would a monopod be a better solution?

It's interesting that this topic has come up with this particular lens. I've spent tens of thousands on Leaf, Mamiya, Cambo, Schneider and Canon equipment to make sure I have the right tools for the jobs I do but the one lens that I've never "upgraded" as I just cant justify it, is the 70-200 f4. It's great and it does as good a job as is possible for me. It might or might or might not for you but don't spend the extra just because of the numbers.
Click to expand...


I hear what you say Dazzajl, that's why I need to think about it and hopefully try them out first before buying. Thanks for your comment.
 
Pah, I know you'll make the right choice. You seem far more sensble than me. ;) :LOL:
 
I have used both lenses side by side before and I have never really noticed any big difference in IQ in both lenses. If the money isnt an overly big issue I would go for the f2.8 IS as this will give you a lot more flexibility. The only drawback is the 1kg extra weight for the extra stop, I love my f4 for that reason. I can dodge about all day walking(running :|) to rally stages without my arms getting tired, zip about on a rib taking pictures of sailing events and fatigue from holding the camera has never been a problem. (Spent about an hour with a 300 f2.8 sans monopod once and that tired me out :p)
 
My F2.8 is pin sharp, it peaks around F5.6 for sharpness. But there is no contest you want the lens for wedding shots in doors. Then the F2.8 is your only option the F4 just aint going to cut it. F4 is far to slow for dark churches where flash is not permited.
 
Tbh Gilly, I think I'm going to have to agree with Mark here (PL) as I find that I use f2.8 a massive amount of the time for both indoor & outdoor shots. I am not saying that you couldn't get by with the f4 version because you could but the option for an extra stop is well worth it IMHO. I find that as long as I keep my lens technique at the proper level then the lens sharpness & IQ is no problem at all & after being spoilt with my prime lenses that is saying something (I'm not a great fan of zoom lenses btw but I do actually quite like my 70-200)
It excels in awkward lighting situations & as you are working in dimly lit churches, etc then I'd recommend spending out for the 2.8 IS version.
 
If we accept that the PQ is just about the same for both lenses (certainly nothing the B+G are going to notice) then it comes down to useablity, extra stop and cost.

Ok the f4 must win on useablity and cost (IS as well as non IS) because it is so light and easy to hand hold so that just leaves the extra stop argument which I think is a false argument anyway and dates from film days when you couldn't 'push' a whole film in the developing tank for just a couple of shots in the middle of the film. Given that these days you have the ability to alter the 'film speed' on a shot by shot basis then this 'extra stop for low light' argument no longer stands up. I know people are going to raise the noise issue but I see you have a 5D so you will know that it has very little noise even at 1600 ISO. I don't know what ISO you normally work at but even assuming you go for 400 ASA you still have loads of scope for low light situations at f4 with a useable ISO range up to 1600. So rather than searching for the extra stop just quickly up the ISO

Would I buy a f/2.8 ? Yes - but only for the very limited depth of field you can achieve at 2.8. But that is a different argument entirely and may not be relevant for your wedding shots.

I see you also have the 17-40mm and 24-105mm so you know already what the restrictions are of working at f4. Do they really hamper you ?

Just my thoughts :|

Ray
 
I've had experience of all three Gilly.

I owned the EF F/4 and upgraded to the EF F/2.8 IS and haven't regretted the decision at all. It is a LOT heavier than the F/4 though so you'll definately want to get your hands on one to see if you'd be comfortable lugging it to and around a wedding. Great with a monopod ;)

My friend had the F/2.8 Sigma and sold it for the EF F/2.8 after i let him play with mine. The Sigma glass def plays with greens and yellows.

As Tim says - highly subjective and all three are very worthy lenses.
 
I can see both sides of this argument, but the thing I don't think anyone has mentioned is that with the f4 version you'd lose AF with the 2X converter on a non 1 Series body - (20D, 30D, 5D) but not with the f2.8 version and that point alone makes the 2.8 worth the dosh for me - along with the IS of course.

There's no denying the f4 is a cracker though if you can manage with it and as long as you don't mind the inbuilt limitations. They may not be significant to you now but that could change?
 
Most has already been said above.

I owned the f4 and shot a wedding with this and the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 I had at the time. Even at higher ISO the f4 struggled in some low lit churches / receptions and I had to revert to flash when I could.

Quickly I realised if I want to shoot weddings I needed faster glass and I purchased the 70-200 f2.8L IS. Amazing lens that is sharp as a tack even wide open. The shallow depth of field makes for some beautiful blurred backgrounds too.

The big thing about IS is that you can shoot at much slower shutter speeds and still get very sharp images. Take the image above.... I have a few like this shot at 1/30th and 200mm!! Try that with the non-IS and you'll have a blurry mess.
 
The main deciding point for me between f2.8 and F4 (sigma or canon) would be the fact that the F2.8 is faster, therefore brighter, therefore autofocus is quicker than f4, not only in low light.
This would be the main deciding factor for me when trying to capture the sometimes hectic pace of weddings.
 
I don't know who to answer first:thinking:

Great response guys thanks.

Rayfin - Yes I did struggle with the restrictions of f4 in the Church. I maybe over-reacting about noise. I tend to open the images in the RAW convertor at 100% first and then either go yuck too much noise or yep great, and then reduce the viewing down to fit the screen. I have probably discounted potentially good shots by my method of selection and therefore feel a bit let down with myself and my capabilities to shoot bright, sharp and interesting wedding images. I am perhaps forgetting that printed out at say, 7x5 you wouldn't notice the noise that much. I do run them through despeckle or dust/scratches removal in PS CS2. I have heard a couple of you use Neat Image or Noise Ninja software.

PapaL & Moomike - Hmmm, I am leaning more in this direction. As you say, I don't want to be in a position a year or so down the line trying to sell the f4 because I should have gone for the f2.8 to start with.

Les Mclean - I know, the pull is getting stronger now towards the Canon f2.8.

Although I only mentioned weddings to start with, but I do like doing Macro (have Sigma 105mm 2.8) and would like to start taking wildlife too. I must be the only peep on here who hasn't captured a squidger yet! So from what CT says about adding convertors at a later stage and maintaining AF sounds more appealing.

Glo has started a new thread asking for most used lens in kit bag, and I have noticed the positive response erring on the side of the f2.8.

Geez thanks guys. I am going to print the whole thread out and highlight pros and cons and keep it handy for hubby to read when I remind him, that he said I can get one :LOL: :LOL:
 
Busterboy has sold his now but maybe a 135 f/2 L prime might be worth looking at as well...
 
I went for the f4 version when I was buying it and i'll have to admit that decision was made entirely on cost, I would buy the f2.8 if I could afford it. The f4 is great for hand holding as it weighs so little but I would still drop it for the f2.8L IS if I had the money, I would consider the extra stop more than enough to ofset the 1kg more weight.

Also the f2.8 focuses a lot better in low light, I really find my 70-200 struggling when the light gets really low, i've never seen that problem to the same extent when using an f2.8 version. I always have to manually focus my 70-200 at gigs, the AF just takes too long unless the people are under direct spotlight which they tend not to be at the local gigs here.

As a further note, if anybody is looking to direct swap a 70-200 f4L non-IS for a 70-200 f2.8L IS pm me ;) *crosses fingers*
 
mole2k said:
As a further note, if anybody is looking to direct swap a 70-200 f4L non-IS for a 70-200 f2.8L IS pm me ;) *crosses fingers*
Click to expand...

:LOL: :LOL: Don't hold your breath mole2k it ain't gonna happen:shake: :LOL:
 
Gilly B said:
Glo has started a new thread asking for most used lens in kit bag, and I have noticed the positive response erring on the side of the f2.8.
Click to expand...
He! he! It was because of this thread that I started it Gilly ;)
I wanted to get a general idea of how well used the lens is and didnt want to gatecrash here because I know how important the decision will be for your work!

So what do you reckon the next thread should be ... 'Show us your best 70-200mm at the wide end?' :LOL:
 
dazzajl said:
but the one lens that I've never "upgraded" as I just cant justify it, is the 70-200 f4.
Click to expand...

Well it's about time you did Daz:rules: After all the hard work you've put that poor little lens through isn't it time you let it retire in the New Forest;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top