Canon 70-200 F2.8 and F4 DOF difference

Marcus Geezer

Marcus Geezer

Messages
3,522
Name
Marcus
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking at different lens with a view to upgrading in the New Year and although I have an ideal wish list unfortunately I'd have to sell body parts to be able to get that as quick as I'd like.... :thinking:

Currently running with a Canon 40D and looking to upgrade my 28-135 to a 24-70 F2.8. However I will also need a 70-200 and this is where I'm having a bit of a problem deciding.

Obviously ideally I'd like the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS, but with the price of these wont be getting one anytime soon, so am looking at a 70-200 F4 which I could afford much much sooner. I've read loads of reviews on the 70-200 range and think the F4 would do the job at least for a while (possibly indefinitely) but to clinch it would really want to see the depth of field difference.

If anyone has a 70-200 woud it be possible to post up similair pics showing 70mm at f2.8 and F4 and then 200mm at f2.8 and F4?

Sorry if this sounds an unusual request but would like to see what kind of general 'bokeh' effect each gives?

Thanks.. :)
 
Sorry can't help with your query, but why not buy a used 70-200 F4 then sell it when you can afford the 2.8 (IF you feel you need it still).
You'll not loose much doing that and you will have a 70-200 sooner.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Sorry can't help with your query, but why not buy a used 70-200 F4 then sell it when you can afford the 2.8 (IF you feel you need it still).
You'll not loose much doing that and you will have a 70-200 sooner.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting and that is exactly the plan! But just dont want to go through the hassle of buying the F4 only to find I'm not entirely happy with the results. I know it is pin sharp, fast focussing etc, but DOF is very important to me and want to see what the F4 can produce.
 
Can't you just use one of the calculators to work out what your DOF will be??

Far better than looking through a pile of random photos posted on an internet forum...
 
desantnik said:
Can't you just use one of the calculators to work out what your DOF will be??

Far better than looking through a pile of random photos posted on an internet forum...
Click to expand...

Done that. Want to see the pile of random photos thanks. :)
 
I was wrong, I may be able to help with your query. I had an F4 a while ago (And I'm in the process of buying another!) and I've had a 2.8. I just don't know if I've got any shots wide open in similar circumstances - I'll have a dig round.
 
Does it have to be a Canon? I've just got a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, they're the same price as the canon f/4 and I couldn't be happier. One day I'll get the 70-200 IS, but that's not going to be happening for quite some time (planning on acquiring a 100-400 L before then!).

Chris
 
chris321 said:
Does it have to be a Canon? I've just got a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, they're the same price as the canon f/4 and I couldn't be happier. One day I'll get the 70-200 IS, but that's not going to be happening for quite some time (planning on acquiring a 100-400 L before then!).

Chris
Click to expand...

Unfortunatley it does. I'm happy sticking with Canon.

:canon: :love: :nuts:

Looking into the future the 100-400L is on my wish list as well!
 
Marcus Geezer said:
Unfortunatley it does. I'm happy sticking with Canon.

:canon: :love: :nuts:
Click to expand...

Fair enough, just thought I'd mention it! One thing I did notice was that going from slow lenses to a 70-200 f/2.8 makes life quite difficult, you have to be so much more accurate when focussing as the depth of field can get really quite narrow!
 
A lot of the time when shooting is not about how the DOF comes out but how much light it needs. For 200mm, an extra stop is invaluable. And as always, its cheaper to get what you want in the first place in the long run, even if you need to save up another 2 months fo it.
 
chris321 said:
Fair enough, just thought I'd mention it! One thing I did notice was that going from slow lenses to a 70-200 f/2.8 makes life quite difficult, you have to be so much more accurate when focussing as the depth of field can get really quite narrow!
Click to expand...

Thanks anyway. And that is a concern I would quite happily deal with!

Raymond Lin said:
A lot of the time when shooting is not about how the DOF comes out but how much light it needs. For 200mm, an extra stop is invaluable. And as always, its cheaper to get what you want in the first place in the long run, even if you need to save up another 2 months fo it.
Click to expand...

I've looked into this. A used 70-200 F4 seem to be £350 to £400-ish and the price difference between that and my eventual target lens of F2.8 IS is quite a jump which is more than two months saving, at least for me. Having the F4 means that I have greater potential for earning than not, of which the earnings would help fund the F2.8 quicker. Also, I'd like to hope as pointed out above that I could buy and sell a used F4 without too much loss.

Anyway, anyone got any pics?
 
I have a 70-200 f/2.8 if a pic at f/2.8 and one at f/4 of the same thing from the same lens is any use I will stick the camera out of the door and take a couple for you!
 
susie said:
I have a 70-200 f/2.8 if a pic at f/2.8 and one at f/4 of the same thing from the same lens is any use I will stick the camera out of the door and take a couple for you!
Click to expand...

That would be fantastic Susie. Thank you very much. Looking for the different apertures at the extreme ends, i.e. one at f2.8, one at f4 at 70mm and the same at 200mm.

EDIT: Just seen your website. Blimey, made me larf. :D
 
Just poped out back and took them
http://farm3.static.flickr.com
f2.8 1/20 ISO100 70mm
[IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2533/4068145613_e28b6ed9f3_o.jpg
f4 1/10 ISO 100 70mm
4068146605_618209f839_o.jpg

f2.8 1/20 ISO100 200mm
4068148061_02d1abc0b2_o.jpg

f4 1/10 ISO100 200mm
4068147371_a8cab94ce2_o.jpg
 
Chaz Photos said:
Just poped out back and took them
http://farm3.static.flickr.com
f2.8 1/20 ISO100 70mm
[IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2533/4068145613_e28b6ed9f3_o.jpg
f4 1/10 ISO 100 70mm
4068146605_618209f839_o.jpg

f2.8 1/20 ISO100 200mm
4068148061_02d1abc0b2_o.jpg

f4 1/10 ISO100 200mm
4068147371_a8cab94ce2_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to do this. Looking at these images at 70mm there is not a lot of difference but when you look at the 200mm you can really see the extra 'bokeh' (is that the right word?) in the f2.8 over the f4. I honestly didnt realise it would be that pronounced, so it looks like the F2.8 over the F4 which means that I have some thinking to do.
 
Marcus Geezer said:
I honestly didnt realise it would be that pronounced, so it looks like the F2.8 over the F4 which means that I have some thinking to do.
Click to expand...

It all depends on how far the subject is from the background, this shot was at f4 but the foreground/background was about 10m

blacksq.jpg



belly is soft due to cloning out a bird feeder pole ;)
 
RichardtheSane said:
Sorry can't help with your query, but why not buy a used 70-200 F4 then sell it when you can afford the 2.8 (IF you feel you need it still).
You'll not loose much doing that and you will have a 70-200 sooner.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm doing - got the f4 and when I've got loads of cash (when? if?!) I'll sell it and get the f2.8 IS.

I was worried about the DoF as well but given the length of the lens you're often quite far away and the subject is often quite far away from the background so the extra shallow DoF at 2.8 hasn't been missed too much.
 
I'm in the same boat as you with these two lenses...

I could get the 70-200 f4 USM for Christmas, but if I wait 'till January I could get the f2.8.

I hate waiting (I also really need a telephoto) although I know for a fact that the f2.8 would be like a 'lens for life' whereas if I got the f4 I'd probably kick myself I never waited at some point and selling at a loss etc...
 
You could take a couple of pictures with your 50mm at f/2.8 and f/4 - it would give you an idea.

I think there are a lot of factors affecting bokeh (including the particular optical design of the lens, aperture shape etc) apart from f/number.

One is the distance the background is from the subject which has a big difference in how far out of focus it is. Another is field of view and the longer the focal length, the narrower the angle, giving less visible background. This tends to make the background less cluttered so that the main subject stands out more.

Lastly, if shallow depth of field is something you want to use, you get less DoF with full frame over crop format if your frame the subject the same - multiply/divide the f/number by the crop factor to get the effective difference in f/numbers, eg f/4 on full frame gives the same DoF as f/2.5 on crop format (4/1.6=2.5). On Canon 1.6x the difference is 1.3 stops.
 
Weather permitting I'll get out with the 2.8 and shoot the same shots at 2.8 and 4 - if you can wait that long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top