70-200 F4 v F2.8

S

Slicker

Messages
315
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I am looking to get some new lenses before I upgrade my body. I ahve a 400D at the moment, and looking to upgrade to a 50D when the time is right.

I am looking at the F4 and F2.8 version of the 70-200. Is the 2.8 really worth the extra money? My main use for this will be as a 2nd wedding tog for now (and hopefully on my own one day!!)

Thanks
Paul
 
f/4 will struggle inside most venues, even f/2.8 is pushing it at some places which is why faster primes become useful.
 
thats what I thought... now I just need to decided if I need/can afford that IS version....
 
Having had both, yes the 2.8 is definitely worth it. If you can afford it, the extra photons are always useful so why deny yourself.
 
I have used both too and the 2.8 IS is much better in low light but it is exceptionally heavy to carry all day. I recently used one on my gripped 50D and was struggling after a couple of hours.
 
You could consider the sigma 70-200 F2.8, if IS isn't such an issue.

It is usually a crisp and sharp lens, and a lot lighter (and cheaper) than the canon 70-200 f2.8.
 
Slicker said:
thats what I thought... now I just need to decided if I need/can afford that IS version....
Click to expand...

You need.
Just think of the narrow hyperfocal distance that F2.8 gives. The IS will allow you the benefit of a couple of stops to increase that distance.
 
sheddy said:
You need.
Just think of the narrow hyperfocal distance that F2.8 gives. The IS will allow you the benefit of a couple of stops to increase that distance.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how IS increases the hyperfocal distance please?
 
I had a play with the 50D with the 70-200 IS lens on it, and it is a brute of the lens even with the grip attached. That being said, im in love now ;)
 
thyreus4 said:
.

F4L IS would be my choice for it's price and 4 stops IS
Click to expand...

That's my choice of lens, but then I'm not a wedding tog. If I were I would go for the 2.8 IS.

Whilst IS won't extend the hyperfocal it does mean you can keep the 2.8 for longer as the light fades.
 
When I had the f/4 IS, whilst I found it to be a great lens, for me it just didn't fulfill a particular niche. When I moved over the f/2.8 IS, it became my favourite portrait lens because it covers a very versatile focal length range and the larger aperture really helps to make your subject stand out from the background. e.g.

 
If you can cope with the weight and the cost, the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS is superb. IQ is in a league of its own. I have used this lens for over four years and still marvel at the results.
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
Presumably sheddy meant that using IS will allow you to close the aperture 1 or 2 stops, increasing the hyperfocal distance, and still be able to hand hold the lens
Click to expand...

If you increase the f/number (ie close down the aperture) hyperfocal distance is reduced. Depth of field is increased.

I just bought the 4 IS in preference to the 2.8 lens, regardless of price. You could argue that IS with a mainly static wedding subject is as useful as f/2.8 in low light, but I'll admit that most wedding photographers seem to go for the lower f/number in preference.

The main difference to me is the weight and that 2.8 lens is a lump (albeit a lovely lump).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top