Canon 70-200 IS f2.8 v 70-200 IS f4
- Thread starter Weggy
- Start date
For me the main deal breaker for the 2.8 came down to weight. I tend to carry my gear whilst out hiking and the extra WOULD make a difference after a full day.
I think I was lucky to have the chance to play with both before commiting to buy aswell. Do you know anyone that has either 'cos at the end of the day it's a big investment to make without at least a basic test drive.
I think I was lucky to have the chance to play with both before commiting to buy aswell. Do you know anyone that has either 'cos at the end of the day it's a big investment to make without at least a basic test drive.
- Messages
- 8,346
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The differences are:
- Cost: about 300 squiddles difference
- f2.8: obvious really, or at least it should be if you are considering blowing £1000 on a lens
- WEIGHT : the f2.8 is heavy 1.5kg as opposed to the f4 which is half that.
- IS : on the f2.8 is 3 stop and 4 on the f4 version. It's 1 stop better.
I've got the f2.8 version and love it. I use it wide open quite a lot. Its got a luverly bokeh
Had I bought the f4 version I'd always have been asking myself if I could have managed with the f4 as for slow/stationary objects in low light situations the extra stop IS "might" compensate....
("might" because its a mechanical thing that "should" do the right thing, but :shrug
I decided that I could live with the extra weight, and know that the glass was as fast as I could get.
IS is very good and I leave it on all the time, but I wouldnt want to have to rely on it.
My 2p
- Cost: about 300 squiddles difference
- f2.8: obvious really, or at least it should be if you are considering blowing £1000 on a lens
- WEIGHT : the f2.8 is heavy 1.5kg as opposed to the f4 which is half that.
- IS : on the f2.8 is 3 stop and 4 on the f4 version. It's 1 stop better.
I've got the f2.8 version and love it. I use it wide open quite a lot. Its got a luverly bokeh
Had I bought the f4 version I'd always have been asking myself if I could have managed with the f4 as for slow/stationary objects in low light situations the extra stop IS "might" compensate....
("might" because its a mechanical thing that "should" do the right thing, but :shrug
I decided that I could live with the extra weight, and know that the glass was as fast as I could get.
IS is very good and I leave it on all the time, but I wouldnt want to have to rely on it.
My 2p
- Messages
- 5,385
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Canon claim that the 70-200 f2.8 IS is a 3 stop improvement on shutter speed, whether the F4 4 stop range is be due to it's weight, or better IS I don't know.
However with sports photography you're going to be using as high a shutter speed as possible to stop the action I would have thought, so probably the difference in IS performance becomes a little less important. The extra stop may be of more advantage.
However with sports photography you're going to be using as high a shutter speed as possible to stop the action I would have thought, so probably the difference in IS performance becomes a little less important. The extra stop may be of more advantage.
- Messages
- 1,309
- Name
- martin
- Edit My Images
- No
I would(have done myself) save some money(~£300) by buying the non is version of 70-200mm f2.8 - you are shooting action so would need 1/500 - 1/1000 shutter speed to freeze action, its not IS that you need. put the money saved into a 1.4 mk2 extender and a good solid monopod.
- Messages
- 5,288
- Name
- Andy Jones
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The extra stop of IS on the f/4 is at the wrong end of the scale so it's no good for sports where a high shutter speed is important. The f/2.8 on the other hand gives you another stop in the right direction as well as giving the AF more light to work with.
- Messages
- 5,111
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I currently have both f2.8 IS and f4 IS.
The weight of the 2.8 means it is going to be sold soon.
I wanted to live with both for more than a few moments play in a shop, and have not even taked the 2.8 outside yet, but the f4 is brilliant. The 2.8 is also a large thing to poke into a face if wanting to get close in, the f4 is not so obtrusive, though for sports, this is not an issue - also, as said before, IS is not usually needed for sports, I imagine..
Sadly, i have discovered via a TP member that Kerso is selling them cheaper than he was and with the Canon cashback, I need to hold on to mine till after christamas or loose too much money - seems sort of wrong to have it sitting in its pouch !
The weight of the 2.8 means it is going to be sold soon.
I wanted to live with both for more than a few moments play in a shop, and have not even taked the 2.8 outside yet, but the f4 is brilliant. The 2.8 is also a large thing to poke into a face if wanting to get close in, the f4 is not so obtrusive, though for sports, this is not an issue - also, as said before, IS is not usually needed for sports, I imagine..
Sadly, i have discovered via a TP member that Kerso is selling them cheaper than he was and with the Canon cashback, I need to hold on to mine till after christamas or loose too much money - seems sort of wrong to have it sitting in its pouch !
Thanks for all the comments. I had thought the 2.8 would come into it's own for speed and low light. I have the 100-400 already and am used to hand holding that, so weight shouldnt be an issue. Think I'll look at hiring a 2.8 for the weekend and see how it goes.
Steve - Kerso is ace, but a real bummer when you're trying to sell lens or bodies yourself!
Steve - Kerso is ace, but a real bummer when you're trying to sell lens or bodies yourself!
- Messages
- 4,355
- Name
- Anthony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I had a similar choice a few months back and opted for the 2.8 is. I too have the 100-400 and i feel they go together rather well. I think as others have if i hadnt have got the 2.8 i would always wonder what i was missing, and as for the weight i wasnt too bothered as the 100-400 aint exactly light either!!