50D & 70-200 F4 - First photos

Jelster

Jelster

Messages
9,619
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Well we went out yesterday and I got a chance to use the new 50D & 70-200 f4 combination.

3651420167_cbab5c24ee_o.jpg


The first chance to use them in anger and I'm very pleased. I've got more shots but just haven't had time to process them (what's worse is that I now have to process the wife's shots with the 40D as well!) :help:

I also used the 70-300 f4-f5.6 USM and it's nowhere near as good.....

Steve
 
i never understood how canon can have 4 lenses on the 70-200mm such a smart move, why can't nikon do that same!!!
 
ricky1980 said:
i never understood how canon can have 4 lenses on the 70-200mm such a smart move, why can't nikon do that same!!!
Click to expand...
Just sell your Nikon and buy a Canon... Sorted.

The 70-200L's are lovely. I can't wait to get my f/2.8 IS.
 
ricky1980 said:
i never understood how canon can have 4 lenses on the 70-200mm such a smart move, why can't nikon do that same!!!
Click to expand...

They are sticking with the 1 lens to rule them all thinking :p, if its pro use lens why have a slower Fstop & no IS? just do it right the first time maybe.
 
buckas said:
best decision i've made so far - it's an absolute stunner (y)
Click to expand...
I'm sure it is, but the f/4 IS is an absolute stunner too and I'm trying to justify the extra £500-£600. :LOL: When I tried both of them in Jessops the f/4 IS actually felt better made as the f/2.8 IS's zoom ring felt gritty and just not as nice. It could have been a one-off, though -- a few other things in that store apparently was exactly that. :LOL:

Anyway, off-topic -- whoops!
 
Kryptix said:
The 70-200L's are lovely. I can't wait to get my f/2.8 IS.
Click to expand...

I was toying with the idea of getting the 70-200 F4 IS as it is considerable lighter than the f2.8 IS version. Do you think the weight issue should be enough to warrant going the f4 path or would I be wiser to invest in the f2.8 IS? :)I'm still learning so would appreciate the benefit of your experience
 
Denisw said:
I was toying with the idea of getting the 70-200 F4 IS as it is considerable lighter than the f2.8 IS version. Do you think the weight issue should be enough to warrant going the f4 path or would I be wiser to invest in the f2.8 IS? :)I'm still learning so would appreciate the benefit of your experience
Click to expand...

Although I don't own one, I have good access to the 100-400, and I went with the f4 non IS purely on the fact that I wanted something that was sharp and light. The f2.8 IS is a very heavy lens for the focal length, and I wanted to lighten the load, not make it heavier !!

Steve
 
Kryptix said:
I'm sure it is, but the f/4 IS is an absolute stunner too and I'm trying to justify the extra £500-£600. :LOL: When I tried both of them in Jessops the f/4 IS actually felt better made as the f/2.8 IS's zoom ring felt gritty and just not as nice. It could have been a one-off, though -- a few other things in that store apparently was exactly that. :LOL:

Anyway, off-topic -- whoops!
Click to expand...

Thats very unlike you thinking about a purchase I am suprised you don't own all 4.

Back ontopic
Love my 2.8 :) didn't get the IS version couldn't justify the extra dosh especally when it would always be off, there is the option of switching it on if i need to with the IS version but then I can also find a need for the extra £300
 
Denisw said:
I was toying with the idea of getting the 70-200 F4 IS as it is considerable lighter than the f2.8 IS version. Do you think the weight issue should be enough to warrant going the f4 path or would I be wiser to invest in the f2.8 IS? :)I'm still learning so would appreciate the benefit of your experience
Click to expand...

weight on the 2.8 IS doesn't bother me personally - quite happy to rattle of 1/2k of images handheld all day at a rally
 
Yep, the weight of the 70-200 2.8 IS isn't much at all, on a gripped 5D Mk II, 50D etc.

You should try handholding the 300mm f2.8 IS for a time :nuts::puke:

I think all of the Canon 70-200s are superb, but only one of the IS versions has latest generation IS, that being the f4 IS. All 4 are very sharp but I absolutely loved the 70-200 2.8 IS :)
 
buckas said:
weight on the 2.8 IS doesn't bother me personally - quite happy to rattle of 1/2k of images handheld all day at a rally
Click to expand...

The only problem for me is my kitbag is heavy already as I take most stuff with me :D
 
I'm used to the weight of the f/4 IS so when I picked up a f/2.8 IS for the first time it did feel a bit heavy but to be honest, once I've got my heavy 50D (gripped with two batteries), my 580EX II and so on attached you really don't notice the difference. I'd swap my f/4 IS for a f/2.8 IS if I could, even if it meant having an older IS system (apparently) and less sharp images (apparently). I think some people are extremely picky but I never noticed a difference in image quality between the two.
 
Denisw said:
I was toying with the idea of getting the 70-200 F4 IS as it is considerable lighter than the f2.8 IS version. Do you think the weight issue should be enough to warrant going the f4 path or would I be wiser to invest in the f2.8 IS? :)I'm still learning so would appreciate the benefit of your experience
Click to expand...

If you're at all concerned about weight, as I was, then the 2.8 is not for you. It's twice the weight of the f/4. A big lens by any score.

If you use f/2.8 a lot, no doubt you will love it. But if you don't, you will soonb begin to hate it. Especially after spending all that money. Maybe the f/4 IS is a half-way house - well pleased with mine, £799 from Kerso ATM :)
 
Thank you all for your comments, I think I will trot over to park cameras and compare the weight. I do use an f2.8 24mm Canon and the Tammy 28-75mm f2.8 glass at the moment and I do enjoy the benifits in doors and in low light so if I can stand the extra waiting time:eek: I will probably get the f2.8.

Cheers again Denis :)
 
Would the DOF of f/4 on fullframe be as shallow as f/2.8 on 1.6x for the same frame? I've been thinking which version of 70-200 to buy. Don't care much about f/2.8 letting in more light, just want the ability to diffuse the background. But if f/4 on 5D has same DOF as f/2.8 on 40D (same frame), then I think I'd be happy with f/4 (coz it's cheaper than f/2.8).
 
packham said:
Would the DOF of f/4 on fullframe be as shallow as f/2.8 on 1.6x for the same frame? I've been thinking which version of 70-200 to buy. Don't care much about f/2.8 letting in more light, just want the ability to diffuse the background. But if f/4 on 5D has same DOF as f/2.8 on 40D (same frame), then I think I'd be happy with f/4 (coz it's cheaper than f/2.8).
Click to expand...

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 
packham said:
Would the DOF of f/4 on fullframe be as shallow as f/2.8 on 1.6x for the same frame? I've been thinking which version of 70-200 to buy. Don't care much about f/2.8 letting in more light, just want the ability to diffuse the background. But if f/4 on 5D has same DOF as f/2.8 on 40D (same frame), then I think I'd be happy with f/4 (coz it's cheaper than f/2.8).
Click to expand...

"Would the DOF of f/4 on fullframe be as shallow as f/2.8 on 1.6x for the same frame?"

Good point - it's very close. The difference is 1.28 stops on Canon crop. f/2.8 x 1.6 = f/4.48
 
HoppyUK said:
"Would the DOF of f/4 on fullframe be as shallow as f/2.8 on 1.6x for the same frame?"

Good point - it's very close. The difference is 1.28 stops on Canon crop. f/2.8 x 1.6 = f/4.48
Click to expand...

I just had that conversation with the guy advising me at the shop before purchase (we made the difference 1.92), anyway after dicussing the pro's and con' and the difference in price I purchased the 70-200 f4 USM + Hoya pro1 digital filter and I am now the proud owner of my first L glass. I've been playing with it this morning and couldn't be more pleased with it:love::love::love:. the only downside is Canon don't include the Lens mounting collar, and although this means extra cash to purchase it, I'm still in pocket to the tune of approx £500 by not getting the f2.8. The other nice part about that is I am well on my way to getting my 2nd L glass a 24-105mm f4L IS USM:)
 
Denisw said:
I just had that conversation with the guy advising me at the shop before purchase (we made the difference 1.92), anyway after dicussing the pro's and con' and the difference in price I purchased the 70-200 f4 USM + Hoya pro1 digital filter and I am now the proud owner of my first L glass. I've been playing with it this morning and couldn't be more pleased with it:love::love::love:. the only downside is Canon don't include the Lens mounting collar, and although this means extra cash to purchase it, I'm still in pocket to the tune of approx £500 by not getting the f2.8. The other nice part about that is I am well on my way to getting my 2nd L glass a 24-105mm f4L IS USM:)
Click to expand...

1.92 stops? It seems to be a little known fact that you get less depth of field as format size increases. And by how much. Relative to full frame, just multiply the f/number by the crop factor, which gives about one and a quarter stops for Canon/Nikon crop, and exactly two stops for 4/3rds format. Canon 1D at 1.3x is just under one stop.

I've also had debates on here where people deny this based on a skewed application of theory and focal length. The truth is that focal length is primarily relevant to angle of view, so that has to change with format for you to frame the picture in a similar way. A 50mm lens on full frame is about the same as a 30mm lens on crop (actually 31mm Canon, and 33mm Nikon). So the image size is smaller, so depth of field is increased. Check it out on www.dofmaster.com and keep the focusing distance and the f/number the same, but change the camera format and focal length to maintain the same angle of view, and there you have it.

If you want shallow depth of field, then full frame does it better than crop, and vice versa. In all the arguments about crop vs full frame, this is one fundamental that technology can never change. So if that is important to you, and it probably should be, then an alternative to the 70-200 f/2.8 on a crop camera, is the 70-200 f/4 on full frame. But then you also loose the reach :LOL: These desicions are never easy.

But if you only want f/2.8 for it's low light capability, then IS helps massively with static subjects, and upping the ISO is another option with modern cameras that are really very good at ISO levels unheard of a few years ago.
 
Thanks for the link Happy UK it's very useful. I been reading and calculating a few typical distances and setting through the range of my new lens. my brain hurts now:LOL: But seriously it was very helpful and thanks again. I'm off out now to try my L glass on the tripod while the light is still here(y)
 
Jelster said:
Although I don't own one, I have good access to the 100-400, and I went with the f4 non IS purely on the fact that I wanted something that was sharp and light. The f2.8 IS is a very heavy lens for the focal length, and I wanted to lighten the load, not make it heavier !!

Steve
Click to expand...

I have followed suit and got the non IS and as you state it is very sharp, couldn't be more pleased(y):)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top