anyone got both f/4 and f/2.8 versions of 70-200

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the f/4 IS 70-200mm and I have used the mark 1 2.8 with IS, the size and weight is a massive difference. I'd love to see the same shot taken with both the mark 2 version and the f/4 version at 200mm wide open to really see the difference

anyone able to do this?
 
Oo I'd like to see that too I have the f4 is usm and wondering about changing
 
Try and find a shot taken on both lenses at f2.8.

cant find any? why?

work that bit of riddle above and you will know the difference between the two.

Once you work that out, ask yourself if you will need f2.8

For my my needs i need it. Thats why i coughed up the money and went all in and got the mk2 f2.8 version instead of the f4 because

A. like you, i may have second thoughts and wished i had got the f2.8

B. i need and like a constant f2.8
 
Surely though you might buy the 2.8 becuase it is sharper at 4.0-5.6 than the 4.0 model is? It is my understanding that lenses are generally not that sharp wide open, but sharpen up a stop or 2 down right?
 
jonneymendoza said:
Try and find a shot taken on both lenses at f2.8.

cant find any? why?

work that bit of riddle above and you will know the difference between the two.

Once you work that out, ask yourself if you will need f2.8
Click to expand...

you are a genius, if only I had realised that!! :lol:

Of course I know the difference between the two physically, i'm not an idiot! :lol:

I want to see a shot taken at 2.8 and a shot taken at f/4 so that i can see how the bokeh and sharpness etc appear,

I have primes for my low light shooting, i want to see this for the general quality of the image produced by both at their max apertures - i want to see how much more bokeh you get with the 2.8, how better the image is if any, all that good stuff.
 
I don't have A-B shots for comparison, but in my opinion, aside from the low light capabilities, the most noticeable difference would be a subject that is about half the size of the frame (like a child playing on a beach). Taken wide open @ f/2.8 you can get a nice 3D subject-isolation effect, especially @ the long end which is less convincing @ f/4.

What I did for a while was have the 70-200 f/4 IS for lightness and general sharpness, whilst keeping the 200mm prime for the case I mention above.


Ultimately, the 70-200 f/2.8 MKII is so astoundingly good I got rid of both in favour of it.

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
I don't have A-B shots for comparison, but in my opinion, aside from the low light capabilities, the most noticeable difference would be a subject that is about half the size of the frame (like a child playing on a beach). Taken wide open @ f/2.8 you can get a nice 3D subject-isolation effect, especially @ the long end which is less convincing @ f/4.
Click to expand...


yes, this is what i'd like to see!
 
I've got both lenses Joe, I'll see if I can get something sorted later this evening or tomorrow morning.

Bob
 
squishy said:
There's some weird looking bokeh outlining in that shot. Is that normal?
Click to expand...

Not on mine :gag:

JonneyM, take that image down quickly...all the Nikon guys will start to think that Canon stuff is inferior.

Bob
 
I've got both lenses. The f4 is brilliant, but the 2.8 is just superb. When using for rugby you can really isolate players out. There's no issue with either lens wide open both are brilliantly sharp
 
I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS version. And yes it is true that wide open it might and I reiterate "might" just give you a pinch lower IQ compared to stopping down to just f/3.5 but my oh my, I can tell you it is still sharp. I have often even concluded that perhaps its not less sharpness wide open that I get but because the DOF is so shallow I might have just missed the focus spot by a fraction so if for example I am shooting a portrait instead on the eye it mght have locked the focus on the eyelashes, and depending upon your distance from the subject that is enough to think that its not as sharp as stopping down at f/4.0. But again this is probably because I am spoilt by the IQ of this lens and the bokeh it produces.
Its one of my most used lenses.
Might have an image taken at f/2.8, let me see if I can find it
 
If we are talking MKI vs MKII IS f/2.8, the first was sharp and usuable wide open.

The MKII is staggering wide open and the extra sharpness/microcontrast allows that 3D subject pop more easily.

Phil
 
zulupentax said:
I have often even concluded that perhaps its not less sharpness wide open that I get but because the DOF is so shallow I might have just missed the focus spot by a fraction so if for example I am shooting a portrait instead on the eye it mght have locked the focus on the eyelashes, and depending upon your distance from the subject that is enough to think that its not as sharp as stopping down at f/4.0.
Click to expand...

You'd have to be at the minimum focus distance of 4.6 feet from the subject at 200mm for you to focus on a eyelash and the dof to not be enough to also keep the eye in focus given that the distance from an eyelash to an eyeball is less than a cm in most cases.

Even at only 2m away at 200mm you have a dof of 1.53cm - that would be some close up portrait :lol:
 
joescrivens said:
Even at only 2m away at 200mm you have a dof of 1.53cm - that would be some close up portrait :lol:
Click to expand...


IMG_1335.jpg


IMG_1335-2.jpg


IMG_1334.jpg


IMG_1334-2.jpg


EXIF for all images ISO=1000, 200mm, f/2.8, ss 1/160

Still think its an unusual close up for a portrait?
And check the eye and the difference between the focus spots comparing to the lower eye lash.

By the way these are SOOC, from RAW, no sharpening or any type of processing applied.

And not sure where you get your DOF calculations but according to my calculations at the minimum focusing distance of 1.4m the DOF is 0.007m. In other words you have basically 0.004m in front and 0.004 behind to get the focus spot on in practical terms. Breathe and you hit the eyelash if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
zulupentax said:
EXIF for all images ISO=1000, 200mm, f/2.8, ss 1/160

Still think its an unusual close up for a portrait?
And check the eye and the difference between the focus spots comparing to the lower eye lash.

By the way these are SOOC, from RAW, no sharpening or any type of processing applied.
Click to expand...

can you leave the exif intact so i can see the subject distance

i'm not saying 200mm is unusual close up, i'm saying 200mm at 2m is unusually close, well nothings unusual really, photography is what it is.

This shot was at 144mm and the subject was 2.26m away at 200mm and 2m away it would pretty much just be of her face only.


IMG_3868 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

In your first shot it doesn't look like the eyelash is anymore in focus than the eyeball - it looks like theres a bit of camera shake maybe throwing the sharpness off if that isn't the case I wouldn't be very impressed with that level of sharpness if that were my lens.

the second shot the eye looks as in focus as the eyelash, as is to be expected since his eyelash and his eyeball are less than 1cm away

zulupentax said:
And not sure where you get your DOF calculations but according to my calculations at the minimum focusing distance of 1.4m the DOF is 0.007m. In other words you have basically 0.004m in front and 0.004 behind to get the focus spot on in practical terms. Breathe and you hit the eyelash if you ask me.
Click to expand...

but are you at the minimum focus distance in these? I said:

joescrivens said:
You'd have to be at the minimum focus distance of 4.6 feet from the subject at 200mm for you to focus on a eyelash and the dof to not be enough to also keep the eye in focus given that the distance from an eyelash to an eyeball is less than a cm in most cases.
Click to expand...

so I'm agreeing that at the minimum focus distance at 200mm it could happen, but I wouldn't imagine you take many photos at 200mm from 4.6 feet away unless you just want photos of peoples eyes.

if you read back my dof calculation was for a 2m subject distance, which is 1.53cm at 2.8 @200mm on a full frame camera - and i get my calculations from here:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 
Last edited:
I've had both the F2.8 IS mk1 and the F4 IS (philthejuggler and I had a bit of a swapparoo). The former isn't quite as sharp as the latter at f/4 and, at f/2.8, is noticably softer at the long end, although perfectly usable.

From what I've seen, the F2.8 IS mk2 is pretty much as sharp at f/2.8 as the F4 IS is at f/4, maybe even a little sharper but negligibly so really.

Basically I'd consider the F4 IS and F2.8 IS mk2 to be equivalent in terms of sharpness, you're basically paying £1k for an extra stop of light and twice the weight - whether that's worth it or not is down to the individual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top