Canon 70-200 F4 or 2.8
- Thread starter andyred
- Start date
- Messages
- 220
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- No
Not really an ideal comparison but i have the 70-200 L F2.8 and a 24-105L F4. Shooting both at around the 70 mark, the F2.8 makes a big difference in shooting indoor photography such as the hockey matches i have been asked to do in the past. If you don't NEED F2.8 then i think optically they are both very sharp lenses but if you need the wide apature then obviouslt it is worth the price difference
grumpybadger
Alan Rickman
- Messages
- 4,638
- Name
- Paul Beastall
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've gone the other way from 70-200 f/2.8 IS to 70-200 f/4 IS. Sometimes I miss the f/2.8 but the f/4 comes out with me when I would have left the 2/8 behind because of space in my bag!
- Messages
- 2,543
- Name
- andy
- Edit My Images
- No
Ive just brought the 70-200 F4 L and its a super lens, very fast focusing and super super sharp, ive heard alot of people say the F4 L non IS is sharper than the 2.8, i carnt advise on this as ive only got the F4 L non IS, but it an amazing lens buddy...............
- Messages
- 5,334
- Name
- matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you are staying with a 40D have a check of the manual in the AF section and see what difference the aperture of the two lenses makes. Some AF sensors are only cross type from 2.8 or faster, if you only have central working as a cross type (usually f5.6 or faster) on your model then the aperture wont overly concern you in respect to AF performance, but some AF sensors (on other bodies) have outer selections that work cross type at 2.8 and horizontal only at f4.
Also some points dont work slower than 5.6, which means an f4 lens and a 2x converter will lose AF functionality on those, whereas 2.8 and 2x will still at least work using the central AF point.
Might be wroth thinking about.
Matt
Also some points dont work slower than 5.6, which means an f4 lens and a 2x converter will lose AF functionality on those, whereas 2.8 and 2x will still at least work using the central AF point.
Might be wroth thinking about.
Matt
- Messages
- 1,458
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It really depends on your subjects. For Floodlit football, hockey or anything indoors the 2.8 is a must. I own a Sigma 100-300 f4 which is a faster lens (AF wise) than my 70-200 2.8, but the F4 is useless for floodlit football and hockey.
Also if i want to get separation between subjects and background then the f2.8 is invaluable.
Also if i want to get separation between subjects and background then the f2.8 is invaluable.
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi
Quick question for perhaps those that have upgraded, is the Canon 70-200 L F2.8 worth the price difference / upgrade from an F4 ??
Has anyone done the upgrade ??
Any advice greatly received
What do you want to use this lens for?
I have the 70-200mm f4 (non IS) and the 70-200mm f2.8 IS both have served me very well.
OP
- Messages
- 11,116
- Name
- And
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks for all the quick replies guys, certainly something to think about
Using for motorsport, aircraft - poss at base (have the 300mm for lowflying) and looking at doing more sports this year.
What do you use either lens for ?
Good question - thinking the IS is probably worth the difference if upgrading so not needed to be done again
Thanks again for the replies
Using for motorsport, aircraft - poss at base (have the 300mm for lowflying) and looking at doing more sports this year.
What do you use either lens for ?
Good question - thinking the IS is probably worth the difference if upgrading so not needed to be done again
Thanks again for the replies
It seems strange to me that a lens without IS would be sharper as the IS shouldn't effect optical performance, it merely rotates a lens element to compensate for movement. Does anyone have proof of this or is it just personal opinion?
Canon are supposed to be bringing out a new 70-200 f2.8 (simply the Mark II) with an updated IS, not sure when it's supposed to be out (or if it's out already).
At the longer ranges of lens, in my opinion, IS is a must, that or a tripod/support because you simply aren't going to be able to hold it still by hand.
All that said, the f2.8 really is a workhorse lens and fantastic if you want to do sports in low light.
Canon are supposed to be bringing out a new 70-200 f2.8 (simply the Mark II) with an updated IS, not sure when it's supposed to be out (or if it's out already).
At the longer ranges of lens, in my opinion, IS is a must, that or a tripod/support because you simply aren't going to be able to hold it still by hand.
All that said, the f2.8 really is a workhorse lens and fantastic if you want to do sports in low light.
grumpybadger
Alan Rickman
- Messages
- 4,638
- Name
- Paul Beastall
- Edit My Images
- Yes
IS lenses typically have more elements in the chain so typically offer a slightly worse performance.
I am very interested in the prospect of the f/2.8 IS MkII and will be watching with interest. It could be the lens to replace my 300/4 prime
I am very interested in the prospect of the f/2.8 IS MkII and will be watching with interest. It could be the lens to replace my 300/4 prime
- Messages
- 2,677
- Edit My Images
- No
I think it will cost a fortune.
grumpybadger
Alan Rickman
- Messages
- 4,638
- Name
- Paul Beastall
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh, I'm sure it will at first. I'm in no hurry.
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
70-200mm f2.8 IS - motorsport (close action)
70-200mm f4 - trekking lens as its lightweigt
Main lenses though are 300mm f2.8 and f4 +/- 1.4x TC for motorsport and avaition.
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
£2450-2860 too much money for a 70-200mm f2.8 alot better things I would invest that sort of money on.
Currently the Mark I is available for around the £1500 mark. The Mark II, which is due out next month is about £2500. The Mark II has 4 stop image stabilisation.
Also, there is the f2.8 without IS. Comes in at £1000.
OP
- Messages
- 11,116
- Name
- And
- Edit My Images
- No
Cheers Pete
How do you find the 2.8 for motorsport ?
I know it's a heavier lens than the F4, but is it bordering on too heavy to carry around for the day ?
Thinking I need to try to find a shop with one in to go and try it out.
Incidently, how do you find the 1.4TC with the 300 F4 ??
Thanks
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
When my main lens is the 300mm f2.8 which is 2.5kg, the 70-200mm f2.8 ain't heavy, even have the 300mm f4 in the bag as well, plus 20D and they all move around the track with me. I would class the 400mm f2.8 at 5.6kg heavy, but have a friend you uses it hand held.
I mainly use the 70-200mm at corners where the action is reasonable close, have no real obstructions like safety fences, or if there is, that's where the ladder comes in handy, but mine main weapon of choice is the 300mm.
OP
- Messages
- 11,116
- Name
- And
- Edit My Images
- No
Cheers
Think I'd get shot if I went top buy the 300 F2.8 - although it would be very nice
How do you find the 1.4 TC ?
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
Cheers
Think I'd get shot if I went top buy the 300 F2.8 - although it would be very nice
How do you find the 1.4 TC ?
Got mine 2nd hand off digital depot at a great price last year......
I've used the 1.4x TC (canon) on both the 300mm lenses with great success, taking into account the limitations of using it, i.e. loss of 1 f-stop of light, it slows down autofocus significantly, so more prone to hunt, if you lose focus lock on your subject, but I've got some great images from motorsport and aviation with the 300mm and 1.4x TC combo.
Remembering that light conditions play a significant part in getting the best out of this combo, so performance drops off when the skies start to turn grey like with most lenses.
I've used the TC on the 70-200mm f2.8, but not so pleased with the results, great lens on its own, but would rather use 300mm f4 than 70-200mm f2.8 + 1,4x TC.
- Messages
- 2,626
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
I have had 2 of the 70-200mm F4 versions and now have the F2.8IS sharpness wise they would be pretty much the same - the F2.8 works far better than the F4 version using the converters and obviously the F2.8 is miles better for low light situations
I really liked the F4 versions but found it wanting when used indoors - which kinda made me switch to the F2.8 version
after using it now for about a year I would never go back to the F4 version
as for it being heavy I guess its what you get used to... I have a 200mm F1.8 canon which is a lot heavier than the 300mm F2.8 canon - and I used it extensivly hand held so no I dont find the 70-200mm heavy at all
my 2p
Chris
I really liked the F4 versions but found it wanting when used indoors - which kinda made me switch to the F2.8 version
after using it now for about a year I would never go back to the F4 version
as for it being heavy I guess its what you get used to... I have a 200mm F1.8 canon which is a lot heavier than the 300mm F2.8 canon - and I used it extensivly hand held so no I dont find the 70-200mm heavy at all
my 2p
Chris
OP
- Messages
- 11,116
- Name
- And
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks for that, decisions decisions
Cheers Chris, lots to think about over the weekend - I'm going to try to find somewhere that has one in and go and have a play
- Messages
- 482
- Name
- Allen
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi all
I'm currently in the process of deciding which 70-200 lens to buy also. I think it will most likely be an F4 because of the weight and size (and price), as I will be wanting to be able to take it on travels.
I already own the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, and love the 2.8 in lower light conditions but I think I will be very happy with an F4.
My question is though, is there a big difference between the F4 IS and Non-IS? I know the IS has 4-stop IS but is it worth the double in price? I've seen used non IS go for around £300 and IS versions go for about £650.....which is quite a big difference. I will be using the lens handheld so I'm inclined to invest in the IS version but just wondering if anyone has tried both and whether they think it is worth the extra money.
Thanks
Allen
I'm currently in the process of deciding which 70-200 lens to buy also. I think it will most likely be an F4 because of the weight and size (and price), as I will be wanting to be able to take it on travels.
I already own the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, and love the 2.8 in lower light conditions but I think I will be very happy with an F4.
My question is though, is there a big difference between the F4 IS and Non-IS? I know the IS has 4-stop IS but is it worth the double in price? I've seen used non IS go for around £300 and IS versions go for about £650.....which is quite a big difference. I will be using the lens handheld so I'm inclined to invest in the IS version but just wondering if anyone has tried both and whether they think it is worth the extra money.
Thanks
Allen
- Messages
- 2,677
- Edit My Images
- No
I think the IS version is worth the extra, and its weather sealed.But I do miss not having f2.8 so I just got a 200f2.8 prime.
- Messages
- 1,687
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've had both, and the f/4 IS is worth the extra over the non IS version especially if you are using it handheld.
- Messages
- 399
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you're anywhere near ormskirk or southport I have a 70-200 f4L non IS that you could have a look at. Not about this weekend but give us a shout if it's any help...